Author Topic: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe  (Read 38618 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #550 on: May 01, 2020, 11:53:53 AM »
Lol, so covering Tara Reade's claims are not issue that CNN really wanted to get into, but covering Biden's denial of those claims?  Already five articles (at least) on that.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #551 on: May 01, 2020, 11:54:22 AM »
Biden's statement

Wow.  Just listening to the first minute or so.  Biden thinks women should be heard, but he's denying this happened.  Why would he deny it unless he was guilty?  When he denied it he looked like a deer caught in the headlights.  If he was being honest, he would have looked honest, so he's hiding the truth.  He gave his records to the University of Delaware, but is denying access to them.  Those records were categorized as private by the University over a year ago, which is common while the donor is still alive. 

Hey, but this is FOX Noose, so every denial is evidence of guilt, every hindrance to interfere wth fishing expeditions is proof of collusion. 

There can now be NO DOUBT that Biden did it.

Yes. Like Kavanaugh, claiming you're innocent just means you really did it. The more vehement your denial, the more guilty you probably are. Kafka traps work the same whether red or blue.

Yes, no question the Kavanaugh case was a high-tech lynching.  Biden should start screaming like Clarence and Brett did in order to get his defense across.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #552 on: May 01, 2020, 12:18:06 PM »
Lol, so covering Tara Reade's claims are not issue that CNN really wanted to get into, but covering Biden's denial of those claims?  Already five articles (at least) on that.

Too many posts here side-stepping the issue of Biden and looking at the messengers. ...And mocking the messengers, at that.

Quote
You mean, other than the fact that he clearly still does touch women uncomfortably with impunity? And in such a way where everyone knows it?

The man can not endure a single debate with the President. He has too much baggage, and not just his quid-pro-quos and mental questions. The first time he is unable to cogently argue a valid point of issue will cause him to step down. Who will replace him?

The only positive he can count on is the complicit media - but they will turn on him in a minute if he is seen to be totally hapless. They must, in order to maintain any credibility as they shift their loyal support to whomsoever comes along to supplant him. The GOP is hoping that person would be Hillary, because she is unelectable. If the DNC bows to the Greens and put in Bernie, Fauxcahontas, or some other AOC-endorsed nominee, the numbers are not there to win. Will they turn to Klobachar or one of the two-percenters?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #553 on: May 01, 2020, 12:35:45 PM »
The GOP is hoping that person would be Hillary, because she is unelectable. If the DNC bows to the Greens and put in Bernie, Fauxcahontas, or some other AOC-endorsed nominee, the numbers are not there to win. Will they turn to Klobachar or one of the two-percenters?

Agree on Hillary v Trump going the same way again. I think if it comes down to the delegates voting that Warren wins, she can pull some of the Sanders delegates and isn't viewed as quite as far to the left for the rest of them. But I think Klobachar is by far the most electable of the group because she would do best in the swing states. But after the first ballot anyone is possible. Dark horses at that point would be Cuomo, Newsom, and Michelle Obama. The democrats could end up with one of the most memorable conventions of all time, "back room" zoom deals to see who comes out on top.

I think Biden is going to tank hard in the general, even if the Reade thing is shown to be false. I would love for him to find a reason to drop out.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #554 on: May 01, 2020, 01:00:39 PM »
Some reason not to identify that as an Onion satire?

Was it not obvious satire, regardless of source?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #555 on: May 01, 2020, 01:22:01 PM »
...I would love for him to find a reason to drop out.

He has enough already. What he needs is a face-saving excuse to hand off the baton. He needs to anoint someone before handing off, and that will probably be his VP selection, so Cuomo, Bernie, and Newsom are probably out of the picture, because they have the wrong chromosomes.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #556 on: May 01, 2020, 01:44:50 PM »
Curious. What do the people on this site really think about such allegations coming to light 20+ years after the event and purity poultices. Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

You mean, other than the fact that he clearly still does touch women uncomfortably with impunity? And in such a way where everyone knows it?

Biden a touch feel-ly guy which is uncomfortable to watch as is hearing Trump talk about woman and his daughter. Old men being icky

But no the issue I'm asking about isn't s about a specific person. I'm asking if those on this site really care about 20+ year old allegations that can't be proved.

I don't think we care other then to use them as debate points that will never change anyone bias so, whats the point?. Lets us feel good about ourselves and our choices? My feeling is that we are making things worse for what is a very serious issue.

Purity poultices is a far left thing where only people with out 'sin' can be a political leader. Another tool invented by the left to eat the left.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #557 on: May 01, 2020, 01:49:46 PM »
Some reason not to identify that as an Onion satire?

Was it not obvious satire, regardless of source?

I said that to help make sure wmLambert wouldn't get too excited.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #558 on: May 01, 2020, 02:08:11 PM »
Some reason not to identify that as an Onion satire?

Was it not obvious satire, regardless of source?

I said that to help make sure wmLambert wouldn't get too excited.

No, you were honestly driven by your own incorrect preconceived notions. It is second nature for you to project your own foibles onto others. Like I said, I don't mean to belittle you, but I do understand you. It's not your fault, but you could do better.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #559 on: May 01, 2020, 02:18:13 PM »
Venezuelan isn't a race.

Races are a societal convention. When you use a person's ancestral group, as perceived by you, to treat them as second class citizens, you're treating it like a race, and you're being racist.

Sure, however, as no one is treating or proposing to treat anyone as a second class citizen on the basis of ancestry this is a total nonsequiter on your part.  Treating illegal immigrants as non-citizens is just factually correct and has nothing to do with racism.

Quote
Lol, again you guys hate that Trump is gifted at packing loaded concepts into shorthand statements

We hate that he's a far-right xenophobic racist. "Gifted"? He hasn't said a single thing that a thousand other far-right xenophobic racists haven't done before. "Go back to your countries, <non-white people>", you think that's somehow unique or special, or requires some weird little interpretation? It's spoken by the exact same type of person, the world over, a thousand times in a thousand different places.[/quote]

I think your comment is revealing.  There's zero evidence that he's far right.  His positions are pretty much center right.

There's zero evidence he's xenophobic.  It's not xenophobic to restrict illegal immigration, nor is it xenophobic to renegotiate trade agreements in your own countries interest.  That's pretty much what every country in the world does.

There's also zero evidence he's racist.

So pretty much you're just reasserting your unfounded claims.  Pretending that you're conducting some kind of unbiased or fair-minded analysis of speech patterns is just nonsense you tell yourself.  You are not any kind of expert on that, you've selected the "similar" speech concepts and carefully pruned out anything that doesn't support your "theory" and you've ignored everything rational that contradicts your desired conclusion.

Trump has pursued reasonable policies that are justifiable in all these areas.  Calling him a racist because you can't explain why his policies are wrong is ridiculous.

Quote
And all you Trump supporters are so utterly parochial, and so completely ignorant of history, that you think he's saying something new or special or strange that only you special few can understand.

And then you go with bizarre personal attacks.  Again, you demonstrate that the only one who's advocating an unreasoning hate based approach to debate based on irrelevant characteristics is you.

If you can't make an actual argument, defaulting to insults is a pathetic substitute.  Again, I'll say it directly this time, you are making insult based arguments because you're wrong on substance and have no other way to explain it. 

This thread, not just you, but many of the responses have convinced me that TDS really is a thing.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #560 on: May 01, 2020, 02:52:42 PM »
No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

You can read about 10m articles on racism that refer to the color of a man's skin, not to mention that it's been taught that way through the schools to hundreds of millions of Americans and billions around the world.

Colorism is about shades and is often used to describe intra-race discrimination, racism is considered broader and is generally viewed as referring to people outside your race.  Your critique was a grossly flawed misuse of the term, which given you used it to attack a proper use of racism, is an unacceptable flaw.  If you're going to pretend to greater knowledge then you have to live with the absolute requirement to use it correctly.

Quote
I'm quite aware that the Democrats were the party of the racists back then. Currently however the party of the racists is the Republicans instead.

Actually just false.  Democrats were and still are the party that views race as a legitimate basis upon which to hang material rights differences.  Behind every policy that seeks to institutionalize a difference based on race you will literally find the DNC.  The patronizing approach the DNC leaders take today is definitely less nasty than their open racism of yesteryear but it's still reflective of their deeply held beliefs that people of some races can't succeed on their own.

Plus, when it comes racism other than white on black, the DNC has far more of it and even openly endorses it from time to time. 

Quote
Every black, Latino or Arab person in the United States can be attacked in the exact same manner as he attacked the four congresswomen, telling them that they should go back to the countries they "came from", even though they're born in America.

Well that's not the same basis.  For it to be the "same basis" they'd have to be advocating stupid anti-American policies, then they could.  I mean I've heard people tell Bernie Sanders he should move to Russia and to Venezuela.  He's not from either but he does in fact advocate their stupid policies.

On the other hand, you are correct as a very general level, anyone can be insulted by being told to go back where they came from.  I've heard tribal leaders say that about white people, however, in that case I suspect you believe that they are entitled to do so (again, consistency of principals not being a strong suit among those making your arguments).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #561 on: May 01, 2020, 02:58:27 PM »
Quote
Speaking to MSNBC's Mika Brezezinski on Friday, the former vice-president denied any sexual misconduct against Tara Reade outright.

"It did not happen. Period," he said.

Brezezinski pressed Mr Biden on his former statements suggesting that women should be believed when coming forward with their stories of sexual violence.

In 2018, when now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford, Mr Biden was joined by a chorus of top Democrats in supporting Dr Ford's claims, and insisting that she be heard.

"For a woman to come forward in the glaring light of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real, whether or not she forgets the facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time," Mr Biden told reporters at the time.

"Are women to be believed unless it pertains to you?" Brezezinski asked Mr Biden on Friday.

"Women are to be believed, given the benefit of the doubt," Mr Biden said. "Then you have to look at the circumstances and the facts."

"The truth matters."

Lucy Flores is one of several woman who has accused Biden of of inappropriate behaviour
Mr Biden refused to speculate on Ms Reade's motives, saying she had a right to come forward "and say whatever she wants to say. But I have a right to say: 'Look at the facts.'"

But the former vice-president would not move to open his files at the University of Delaware for a search of documents pertaining to Ms Reade. Despite repeated questioning from Brezezinski, Mr Biden insisted those 1,800 boxes of documents did not contain any personnel files and would be used as political "fodder" for his ongoing presidential campaign.

Happy now?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #562 on: May 01, 2020, 03:04:52 PM »
Not to be argumentative, but we don't know what her story or complaint would have been.  The evidence that Biden assaulted her is scant, and she apparently didn't report it even though she said she did.
]

Couple points on this.  Kasandra is right, the evidence that Biden assualted her is scant.  It's really her word against his.  The corroboration on the other hand is much much higher than was the case with Blasey Ford, which presents a real problem for those that believed Ford and found her credible. 

I will point out, there's no basis to the assertion that she "apparently didn't report it."  If they find the report its proof she did make it.  But even if they don't find it it's not proof that she didn't.  I mean, we can all imagine that a report made through her supervisors, at the time, may have been buried or thrown away rather than filed.  Heck, even it was filed, it would have likely ended up in the Senate's secret files where they settle claims - which I suspect is not the case since they didn't settle it. 

Quote
I certainly don't know what did or didn't happen, but a number of investigations are ongoing in the press.  As far as I know, none of them has reached any strong opinion/conclusion on what might have happened.  Do you think you know?

I think there's a question about what the press is investigating.  Are they looking for support or to disprove the assertions?  There's no question about which way they went on Kavanaugh and the extent they went to uncover everything they could find.  They were relentless and demanded from the first second that the FBI get involved, and that Kavanaugh be required to testify under oath before Blasey Ford.  Here, notwithstanding the ability to access Biden they didn't even raise the question.

They made zero effort to force him onto the record.  Even now they didn't probe him hard on his denial.  To me an obvious follow up to Biden was to ask him if Reade, or any other assistants, were ever tasked with bringing him his gym bag.  I mean, his practice on that should be in his memory.  And if he has a specific memory about her doing so that would be very interesting (even a specific memory that she was not one that did so would be interesting). 

The press could easily have gotten Reade on their programs, made her repeat her story over and over, which would have set the terms in stone and made it possible to verify or refute it.  Yet they didn't do that.  I note there's an interesting parallel to Blasey Ford here.  The press has been absolutely unwilling to get her on record again, which I find very suspicious.  I suspect the more she talked the less credible she would be, much like how some are taking the changes in Reade's story over time as evidence that it's not true.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #563 on: May 01, 2020, 03:06:29 PM »
...Happy now?

Biden is done. His only salvation would be the MSM, and as his problems mount, they must try to retain a semblance of journalism in order to be most effective apologists for the VP as she takes the baton. My guess is Biden will drop the baton on the hand-off.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #564 on: May 01, 2020, 03:11:00 PM »
...Happy now?

Biden is done. His only salvation would be the MSM, and as his problems mount, they must try to retain a semblance of journalism in order to be most effective apologists for the VP as she takes the baton. My guess is Biden will drop the baton on the hand-off.

I wish Biden was done. But Trump also has people accusing of similar things along with his admission that as a celebrity you can do anything you want, "grab them by the p----", which is exactly what Biden is accused of doing.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #565 on: May 01, 2020, 03:18:26 PM »
...Happy now?

Biden is done. His only salvation would be the MSM, and as his problems mount, they must try to retain a semblance of journalism in order to be most effective apologists for the VP as she takes the baton. My guess is Biden will drop the baton on the hand-off.

I also wish that was true - there is no country for old men - lets move on

That said the hypocrisy of making allegations such as this a political right or left thing is stunning.  If you going to play in *censored* your going to get some in your mouth.

 

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #566 on: May 01, 2020, 03:26:38 PM »
Quote
I will point out, there's no basis to the assertion that she "apparently didn't report it."  If they find the report its proof she did make it.  But even if they don't find it it's not proof that she didn't.  I mean, we can all imagine that a report made through her supervisors, at the time, may have been buried or thrown away rather than filed.  Heck, even it was filed, it would have likely ended up in the Senate's secret files where they settle claims - which I suspect is not the case since they didn't settle it.

Straight out of the rightwing playbook. 

1. Nobody can find it.
2. That doesn't mean she didn't file it.
3. In fact, it's easy to imagine that she did file it and it simply got lost.
4. It could even be in the "Senate's secret files" where we will never see it.
5. THEREFORE, there's no evidence that she didn't file it, and since there's no evidence she didn't file it and all the reasons why it can't be found, there's no reason not to think that she did file it.
6. And the big windup: yet more reason to believe that Biden did it.

But, let's not stop there.  Let's imagine that Reade withdraws her claims against Biden (again).  Why would she do that?

1. It could be that she lied and it never happened.
2. OTOH, it could be that Biden's surrogates got to her and told her what could happen to her if she continued talking.
3. It could be they tell her they have evidence linking her to Putin.
4, 5, 6...

and 7. Except for #1 all of the possible reasons show coercion to get her to withdraw her claims.  That's 1 against 6.  The odds are therefore (hmm, *censored*ing dog ate the calculator again, not going to wait two days to get it back this time...so, multiply - no divide...carry the...do I subtract now...?, ah!) 86% that Biden did it.

This is looking better all the time!

Lambert, Seriati, check my numbers.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #567 on: May 01, 2020, 03:39:23 PM »
I find the way you characterize these two events very revealing.  On their records with respect to women, Kavanaugh is actually better than Biden. Kavanaugh's entire record is of uplifting women in his professional life and personal life, without any support for the character attack.  Biden's record is also very strong on his public acts and his political history.  However, it's Biden, not Kavanaugh, that has a record of touching women without consent, a record that is repeatedly demonstrated through photographic evidence, and that includes the underage. 

On the other hand, it's also Biden, who only 2 short years earlier was chair of the judiciary committee during the hearings on Clarence Thomas.  While he's been criticized for how he handled that hearing, it does reveal his real time position on the issues, which I take as some version of evolving out of the "old" model of doubting the woman without exceptional proof and a pre-cursor to me too.  It certainly led to him being very active on this issue over the next several years (including will Reade worked for him) and to his push on the Violence against women act immediately thereafter.  I tend to think that makes him less likely to be someone that would have done this, but I am aware that personal abusers are often public condemners of others.  I could certainly see women in his office covering for him in the interest of the greater good.

Drunk teen attempts rape at party - not particularly beyond the pale.  Drunk guy doesn't remember being drunk or engaging in heinous activity - not really surprising.  Hard core drinker lies repeatedly about drinking - not particularly unexpected.  Person who claims to be the victim of said attempted rape remembers lots of details that noone else does - not surprising at all.

So highly plausible but tough to verify - what was verifiable was consistent. She was a highly credible witness.

So, if you make up a version of a story that sounds plausible it becomes more likely?  Interesting that you didn't follow that approach for Biden below, where it's pretty easy to make up a story about a powerful Senator that feels entitled to put his hands on others and isn't aware of or doesn't respect their discomfort.  Keep in mind we're still years before the Lewinsky scandal, which made it very clear that use of interns for sexual purposes was something that occurred and was routinely covered up. 

Quote
Sober Senator sexually assaults staffer in corridors without any history that would imply he is likely or capable of such - quite surprising.  Staffer is an ardent supporter of his repeatedly and publically after the event and only changes dramatically after she has a substantial change in politics - somewhat surprising.  Staffer has drastically inconsistent stories about all aspects of the claims (what happened to her, why she left, why she came forward) - pretty surprising.  Things that are easily verifiable aren't able to be verified (filing a complaint with HR, complaining to staffers) - pretty surprising.  The only collaboration of her claim is for a drastically less serious claim.  She has an either highly faulty memory or has lied repeatedly about even fairly minor things (ie her praise of Putin).

It's also interesting that for K, you make up a lot of facts about K that make it sound worse, (e.g. calling it rape instead of groping, multiple references to being a drunk and not remembering) and ignore all the inconsistencies in the accusers story - and there were a large number of things that made no sense, including that no one else remembers being at such a party.  Yet with Biden, you spend most of your time focusing on how Reade's story changed, why ignore that Ford's story also changed?  That the number of people at the party changed, the number of attackers changed, that new details were added decades later?  And you ignore that between the two Reade is the one that told the story real time - not decades later - and that it's Reade who others confirmed they were told and for whom there is real time evidence of the connection and that she told others something happened?

It seems like what you find "plausible" has little to do with the underlying facts and everything to do with the parties involved, as there's basis to think Ford's record is stronger than Reades.  Now that said, neither one of them has remotely met the burden of proof.

Given how passionate you were on this for K, I can't find any part of your position here as reasonable.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #568 on: May 01, 2020, 03:42:03 PM »
In other words, circumstantially Kavanaugh was innocent, circumstantially Thomas was wronged and circumstantially Biden is guilty.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #569 on: May 01, 2020, 03:44:11 PM »
I'd have a really easy time believing that Biden made advances on a staff member, and touched them inappropriately. I have a hard time envisioning that with no preamble he just reached up her skirt in a public hallway and then never did anything like that again. I still hope the scandal brings him down because I'm a #neverBiden for dozens of unrelated reasons.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #570 on: May 01, 2020, 04:09:38 PM »
Quote
I'd have a really easy time believing that Biden made advances on a staff member, and touched them inappropriately.

Dangerous ground to hold someone accountable for what you can imagine/believe them capable of doing.

I thought we let go of these types of allegations mattering with the election of Trump. We Don't Care, and if we did care it didn't matter so why the debate. Let us admit the truth or be hypocrites.

FYI those on the left who want to defeat the GOP in the next election any debate on these types of matters plays into the GOP hands. Focus on the Issues that you can back up with facts and avoid the distractions.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #571 on: May 01, 2020, 04:12:12 PM »
In other words, circumstantially Kavanaugh was innocent, circumstantially Thomas was wronged and circumstantially Biden is guilty.

Circumstantial is only part of it. The main factor is what was true and proven, and what was false, and disproven. The only circumstantial part of it is the character and history of both men. Kavanaugh was always a paragon of virtue as attested by everyone who knew him. Biden has film clip after film clip of him inappropriately touching women, and having no scruples about what is right and wrong as proved by his enriching his family in so many tawdry ways.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #572 on: May 01, 2020, 04:15:36 PM »
...I thought we let go of these types of allegations mattering with the election of Trump. We Don't Care, and if we did care it didn't matter so why the debate. Let us admit the truth or be hypocrites.

No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #573 on: May 01, 2020, 04:16:12 PM »
Quote
I will point out, there's no basis to the assertion that she "apparently didn't report it."  If they find the report its proof she did make it.  But even if they don't find it it's not proof that she didn't.  I mean, we can all imagine that a report made through her supervisors, at the time, may have been buried or thrown away rather than filed.  Heck, even it was filed, it would have likely ended up in the Senate's secret files where they settle claims - which I suspect is not the case since they didn't settle it.

Straight out of the rightwing playbook.

It's actually straight out of the logic playbook.  You made an unfounded claim, that's not my fault.  I've never said she made the report, only that you have no basis to assert she didn't. 

Quote
6. And the big windup: yet more reason to believe that Biden did it.

Can you quote me where I said there is a reason to believe Biden did it?  Play the strawman game if you want.  There's no proof this occurred and reasons to believe it's unlikely it did, but it's far more supported than Blasey-Ford's assertions, which again is a problem for anyone that believed Ford and doesn't believe Reade (e.g., problem for Milano, not a problem for McGowan).

Not sure why you seem to take this so personally.  Are you really that invested in things you can't know the truth of?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #574 on: May 01, 2020, 04:34:14 PM »
In other words, circumstantially Kavanaugh was innocent, circumstantially Thomas was wronged and circumstantially Biden is guilty.

Not sure what whose words you think you are restating, but I never said any of that.  It's also a fact that if you've ever asserted believe all women you're a hypocrite if you don't believe Reade.  Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement. 

I'm pretty much on the record that establishing guilt requires proof.  It's not just a matter of choosing who you want to believe more.  Me too was always about choosing who to believe more, just like the position it was rebelling against was choosing who to believe.  Guilt though is not about belief it's about proof.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #575 on: May 01, 2020, 04:43:04 PM »
Quote
It's also a fact that if you've ever asserted believe all women you're a hypocrite if you don't believe Reade.

There you go again. Have I?  Do you think I have done that, even circumstantially?

Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Quote
I'm pretty much on the record that establishing guilt requires proof.  It's not just a matter of choosing who you want to believe more.  Me too was always about choosing who to believe more, just like the position it was rebelling against was choosing who to believe.  Guilt though is not about belief it's about proof.

That is so obviously not true that it's laughable.  I've tussled with you often enough in the past to know that you are a decent parlor lawyer, but your proof always seems to come down uniformly on one side of every issue.

If you're all about proof, will you agree that there's no proof that Biden did what Reade claims?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #576 on: May 01, 2020, 04:48:53 PM »
Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Actually yes.  It's pretty much 100% hating Trump and preferring a Democrat over Trump, any Democrat even one that actually committed crimes.

Quote
Quote
I'm pretty much on the record that establishing guilt requires proof.  It's not just a matter of choosing who you want to believe more.  Me too was always about choosing who to believe more, just like the position it was rebelling against was choosing who to believe.  Guilt though is not about belief it's about proof.

That is so obviously not true that it's laughable.  I've tussled with you often enough in the past to know that you are a decent parlor lawyer, but your proof always seems to come down uniformly on one side of every issue.

If you're all about proof, will you agree that there's no proof that Biden did what Reade claims?

Of course.  There is no proof this occurred.

Again, it's your strawman that I said Biden is guilty.  My point was straightforward and simple.  Reade's claim is stronger and more supported than Blasey-Ford's and only the hypocritical would claim otherwise.  Parse it out yourself, but if you believe Ford and not Reade you are a hypocrite too.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #577 on: May 01, 2020, 04:54:49 PM »
Quote
Actually yes.  It's pretty much 100% hating Trump and preferring a Democrat over Trump, any Democrat even one that actually committed crimes.

So, Democrats have absolutely no moral integrity.  Gotcha.

Quote
Reade's claim is stronger and more supported than Blasey-Ford's and only the hypocritical would claim otherwise.

Is this like using a point scoring system?  Since you have no proof, which you insist is necessary, you resort to claiming circumstantially that she is probably telling the truth because it would be hypocritical to think otherwise.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #578 on: May 01, 2020, 04:55:14 PM »
...I thought we let go of these types of allegations mattering with the election of Trump. We Don't Care, and if we did care it didn't matter so why the debate. Let us admit the truth or be hypocrites.

No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

Bidens character has always been upheld by the people who know him... Those character failures you cite were created...  embraced by never-dem's.. bla bla bla

Must be nice to know how right you are and having made your case anyone that does not agree must be deluded. The Hypocrisy amazing, and that you can't see it, sad

Family values poultices is over. You can argue that you think values and character maters as you have no ground to stand on. Give it up and focus on the issues
« Last Edit: May 01, 2020, 04:57:17 PM by rightleft22 »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #579 on: May 01, 2020, 05:53:26 PM »
Quote
I'm pretty much on the record that establishing guilt requires proof.  It's not just a matter of choosing who you want to believe more.  Me too was always about choosing who to believe more, just like the position it was rebelling against was choosing who to believe.  Guilt though is not about belief it's about proof.

That is so obviously not true that it's laughable.  I've tussled with you often enough in the past to know that you are a decent parlor lawyer, but your proof always seems to come down uniformly on one side of every issue.

It is laughable to want truth over subjecture? You do realize what you just posted?

The Me Too movement is something out of pre-Revolutionary War days, when the King's court could proclaim you guilty and you had to prove your innocence, even without confronting your accuser. In this country, the Constitution says one is innocent unless proven guilty. The Never-Trumpers are strongly on the wrong side of history.

BTW; I have only seen Seriati coming down on the side of truth when it is proven. You should take a page out of his book.

The Democrats are standing strongly behind Biden, and as the sunlight shines, he may lose some support.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #580 on: May 01, 2020, 06:32:44 PM »
No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

It is so entertaining to hear you continually praise the character and good quality of a man who has cheated on all of his wives.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #581 on: May 01, 2020, 06:44:31 PM »
No. Trump's character has always been upheld by the people who know him and attested to his good qualities. Those character failures you cite were created out of whole cloth, and so embraced by the Never-Trumpers that you all consider them proven facts.

It is so entertaining to hear you continually praise the character and good quality of a man who has cheated on all of his wives.
Not to mention someone who has been accused by more than 20 women of, at the least, sexual impropriety, as well as a man who used his position with the Miss Universe pageant to walk through the teenage girls' changing rooms while they were changing and often partly naked - talk about being skeevy and making women feel uncomfortable...

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #582 on: May 01, 2020, 06:52:25 PM »
...Bidens character has always been upheld by the people who know him... Those character failures you cite were created...  embraced by never-dem's.. bla bla bla.

No, Biden is tarred by his own actions. We all saw him bragging about his family, yet you overlook the drug problems and illegal enrichments from his political connections. Trump's family is as well-balanced, successful, and worthy as anything out of the Camelot days of JFK. Even Trump's former wives have supported him. It's not them who prevents the magazines from putting Melania on their covers. The problem with saying there are "Never-Dems" is that history is not on your side. When you project your own short-comings onto others, you don't get to tarnish them with your own dirty laundry.

...Must be nice to know how right you are and having made your case anyone that does not agree must be deluded. The Hypocrisy amazing, and that you can't see it, sad.


Again, projection does not work. Presenting facts and debunking disinformation is not delusion, but denying them is. Biden is a non-apologetic offensive toucher. Take note for future action. If you disagree when disinformation is debunked, you should reaffirm the opposite point if you can. ...Not insult the person ofering you honesty and truth. If you don't sgree, prove your point instead of bullying.

...Family values poultices is over. You can argue that you think values and character maters as you have no ground to stand on. Give it up and focus on the issues

Wading through the typos, the solid ground is not about to be weakened by claims that Biden is a paragon of virtue; or that I, or others with clear consciouses, have any reason to feel shame.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2020, 06:56:00 PM by wmLambert »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #583 on: May 01, 2020, 07:46:13 PM »
Thinking about this a bit more, it may be a bit of blessing in disguise for democrats. Biden is a shell right now. That's not a slam - he's approaching 80 and sh*t happens. I've seen plenty of 78-year-olds who are razor-sharp and others who are basically incoherent.

This could be forcing function to swap him out sooner than later. For the record, he doesn't strike me as someone who would do worst kind of things Reade said, but what the hell do I know.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #584 on: May 01, 2020, 10:43:25 PM »
No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

You can read about 10m articles on racism that refer to the color of a man's skin, not to mention that it's been taught that way through the schools to hundreds of millions of Americans and billions around the world.

Too bad, those articles are then wrong.

Categorization of people into "races" is only incidentally about skin-color. People use skin-color as a shorthand, not as the reality of what racists actually think it's about.

Quote
Actually just false.  Democrats were and still are the party that views race as a legitimate basis upon which to hang material rights differences.

So when exactly did the Deep South (Alabama, Mississippi, etc) supposedly switch from being fanatically racist to being fanatically anti-racist, from always supporting the racists of the DNC to always supporting the (supposed) anti-racists of the Republican party? And how did the most racist part of the country suddenly become the least racist then?

This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm expecting an answer here. There's many questions I pose that go conveniently not-answered, and I tend to believe that that's because you can't answer them.

Quote
Quote
Every black, Latino or Arab person in the United States can be attacked in the exact same manner as he attacked the four congresswomen, telling them that they should go back to the countries they "came from", even though they're born in America.

Well that's not the same basis.  For it to be the "same basis" they'd have to be advocating stupid anti-American policies, then they could.  I mean I've heard people tell Bernie Sanders he should move to Russia and to Venezuela.  He's not from either but he does in fact advocate their stupid policies.

Exactly, he's white and because he's white you didn't tell him to move back to his country (his family was "originally" from Poland), just to countries that (supposedly) share his politics. Sanders wasn't "originally" from Venezuela or Russia, yet told to go *there*, rather than Poland.

White people are, you see, treated as actual Americans and treated according to their opinions not, not as second-class citizens and by their origins.
That's exactly my point.

And, yes, btw, anyone who told Sanders to go back to Israel, they'd be an antisemite, and if they said Poland they'd be a racist, same way that Trump telling an "originally from Puerto Rico" woman to go back to Puerto Rico, is a racist.

Quote
On the other hand, you are correct as a very general level, anyone can be insulted by being told to go back where they came from.  I've heard tribal leaders say that about white people, however, in that case I suspect you believe that they are entitled to do so (again, consistency of principals not being a strong suit among those making your arguments).

If a "tribal leader" was running for president of the United States and told white people to go back where they came from (i.e. leave the United States), I'd call them a racist too. I had no problem calling Mugabe in Zimbabwe a racist.

Quote
I think your comment is revealing.  There's zero evidence that he's far right.  His positions are pretty much center right.
Three questions here:

1) In the republican primaries of 2016, or indeed any republican primary in the last 20 years, will you please name candidates that were further to the "right" than him?
2) Among all the political leaders of democratic nations anywhere in the world, can you name three people who are further to the right than him?
3) Do you also believe Lepen in France to be "center right"?

Again not rhetorical questions, please answer these.

Quote
Trump has pursued reasonable policies that are justifiable in all these areas.  Calling him a racist because you can't explain why his policies are wrong is ridiculous.

I'm calling him a racist because he told certain non-white people (ones who'd displeased him, of course), people who had been born in America, to go back to the countries they were "originally" from, and questioned their desire to have a say on how that Great Nation of Yours is to be run.

No matter how you squirm and try to downplay and excuse it, this alone (let alone the dozens other things he's done) would have sufficed to categorize him as a despicable racist, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #585 on: May 02, 2020, 07:31:17 AM »
Quote
It is laughable to want truth over subjecture? You do realize what you just posted?

In my ongoing effort to help you see things as they really are instead of how you imagine them to be, I'll point out that you made two neological errors in one sentence there.  You made up the word subjecture and should have used truthy instead of truth*.  You credit Seriati with telling the truth, when he really only artfully makes his narrow opinions sound plausible and somehow authoritative; hence, he is being truthy.  I do give him credit for his art, but not his subjecture. 

In using subjecture you betray your inability to focus on and grasp what people who disagree with you are thinking.  If you were able to see what they are thinking, you would be able to come up with a real word or phrase to describe what that is. I think you meant to say something like "disgusting distortions of the truth".  There you can see again how truthy (or truthiness) would be more correct.

The psychological term for claiming that other people you don't like are guilty of the kind of bias that infects your own thinking is projecture**.

* Truthy isn't really a neologism, but Stephen Colbert gave the word its current usage: "Only superficially true; that [which] is asserted or felt instinctively to be true, with no recourse to facts.
** Usage alert: That's a real word.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #586 on: May 02, 2020, 10:53:08 AM »
Quote
...Bidens character has always been upheld by the people who know him... Those character failures you cite were created...  embraced by never-dem's.. bla bla bla.

Quote
No, Biden is tarred by his own actions. We all saw him bragging about his family, yet you overlook the drug problems and illegal enrichments from his political connections. Trump's family is as well-balanced, successful, and worthy as anything out of the Camelot days of JFK. Even Trump's former wives have supported him. It's not them who prevents the magazines from putting Melania on their covers. The problem with saying there are "Never-Dems" is that history is not on your side. When you project your own short-comings onto others, you don't get to tarnish them with your own dirty laundry.

No, Trump is tarred by his own actions, we all see him bragging... demanding ass kissing, yet overlooked.... Biden's family is well-ballanced... bla bla bla

I suspect you would not change your thinking about Trump by such a argument... as its not a argument but a opinion. So why you imagine that your statements on Biden are convincing arguments/opinion I have no idea.

As a apologist you seem not to be able to see past your own crap.

Those who defended Trumps character cannot reverse those arguments to attack Biden character just as those that attacked Trump cannot now reverse those arguments to to defend Biden. There is no ground to stand on without coming off as a hypocrite.

Time to end the charade and admit that we don't care about character or family values if the guy we stand behind acts and does the things we want. The only way to do better at this point is to acknowledge our hypocrisies and let go of this idea of winning at all cost and the ends justifying the means. 

FYI if it was my choice Old men like Trump and Biden would step down, their time has passed and I say that as a old man. Perhaps if either showed signs of wisdom I might change my mind but age does not mean wisdom. 


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #587 on: May 02, 2020, 11:04:43 AM »
@wmLambert -- I noted your issue with my spelling disability - its a vision thing - and wonder if you have a issue with your man's misspeaking and poorly worded/spelled tweets. Or is that yet another hypocrisy your blind to

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #588 on: May 02, 2020, 02:00:42 PM »
Quote
Wading through the typos, the solid ground is not about to be weakened by claims that Biden is a paragon of virtue; or that I, or others with clear consciouses, have any reason to feel shame.

I just love that!!! :D. Rightleft22, "purity poultices" actually works pretty well.  If you didn't do it on purpose, I still give you full credit for it...:)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #589 on: May 02, 2020, 08:58:14 PM »
In other words, circumstantially Kavanaugh was innocent, circumstantially Thomas was wronged and circumstantially Biden is guilty.
No, circumstantially, the media is exercising a double standard on reporting about Biden vs how they'd handle this if the person accused was associated with the Republican Party.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #590 on: May 02, 2020, 09:03:04 PM »
Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Considering many of those same groups stood behind Bill Clinton just over 20 years ago even in the face of DNA evidence to prove Monica's claim about her semen stained dress... I'd say they're more than willing to sacrifice their morals in order to support their political agendas.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #591 on: May 03, 2020, 07:41:42 AM »
Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Considering many of those same groups stood behind Bill Clinton just over 20 years ago even in the face of DNA evidence to prove Monica's claim about her semen stained dress... I'd say they're more than willing to sacrifice their morals in order to support their political agendas.

Geez, wouldn't you expect at least one of them to be supporting him out of the same kind of moral perception you are?  I should ask if you think you are applying a partisan filter or are you thinking based on facts and moral perception?  Is Reade so clearly convincing that there can be little doubt that Biden's denials are simply dishonest?  Why don't you think the burden is on her to come up with enough information that a "jury of the public" would find Biden guilty?  Or is that not necessary in this case?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #592 on: May 03, 2020, 11:35:18 AM »
Quote
Her account already has more support than many that have been part of that movement.

Any idea why so many women and women's groups are standing behind Biden on this one?  Is it only because every one of them is suffering from TDS?

Considering many of those same groups stood behind Bill Clinton just over 20 years ago even in the face of DNA evidence to prove Monica's claim about her semen stained dress... I'd say they're more than willing to sacrifice their morals in order to support their political agendas.

Geez, wouldn't you expect at least one of them to be supporting him out of the same kind of moral perception you are?  I should ask if you think you are applying a partisan filter or are you thinking based on facts and moral perception?  Is Reade so clearly convincing that there can be little doubt that Biden's denials are simply dishonest?  Why don't you think the burden is on her to come up with enough information that a "jury of the public" would find Biden guilty?  Or is that not necessary in this case?

What you read is not what I said?

The moral prerogative is to determine if the accusation is valid, I held that position for the Republicans, I'll support it for the Dems. How they(the press, not the women's groups) are handing the Biden claim is how they should have handled the other claims against the Republicans, but of course that isn't what happened. And probably won't happen again in the future when the next "high profile" Republican is accused(that isn't Trump).

The comparison against how those groups circled around Bill Clinton, even in the face of indisputable (DNA) proof that he engaged in sexual acts with one of his interns. Was to point out that "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #593 on: May 03, 2020, 12:15:55 PM »
... "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh spoke about the Feminazis and the Left pilloried him for it. He seems to have been totally vindicated over the years. I wonder why so few have mentioned that COVID-19 seem to affect men at a far greater rate than women? Some doctors have started to prescribe estrogen and progesterone as a preventative.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #594 on: May 03, 2020, 12:19:05 PM »
... "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh spoke about the Feminazis and the Left pilloried him for it. He seems to have been totally vindicated over the years. I wonder why so few have mentioned that COVID-19 seem to affect men at a far greater rate than women? Some doctors have started to prescribe estrogen and progesterone as a preventative.

I was ready to call BS on this but it's actually true (the estrogen/progesterone part at least).\

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #595 on: May 03, 2020, 03:13:46 PM »
... "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh spoke about the Feminazis and the Left pilloried him for it. He seems to have been totally vindicated over the years. I wonder why so few have mentioned that COVID-19 seem to affect men at a far greater rate than women? Some doctors have started to prescribe estrogen and progesterone as a preventative.

I was ready to call BS on this but it's actually true (the estrogen/progesterone part at least).\

Nowhere are female hormones being used to prevent infection.  There are two small studies going on right now to test the effect of giving them to patients who are in hospital with COVID-19.

Quote
Some experts who study sex differences in immunity, however, warned that hormones may fail to be the magic bullet that some are hoping for; even elderly women with Covid-19 are outliving their male peers, and there is a drastic reduction in levels of hormones for women after menopause.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #596 on: May 03, 2020, 03:37:18 PM »
... "there is a history" on these types of things where these women's advocacy groups apply very different standards for Democrats. The Reade accusations don't come anywhere near that standard of evidence, so that "so many women's rights groups" aren't even waiting for information one way or the other isn't shocking to me, they're completely politically motivated at the best of times.

Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh spoke about the Feminazis and the Left pilloried him for it. He seems to have been totally vindicated over the years. I wonder why so few have mentioned that COVID-19 seem to affect men at a far greater rate than women? Some doctors have started to prescribe estrogen and progesterone as a preventative.

I was ready to call BS on this but it's actually true (the estrogen/progesterone part at least).\

Nowhere are female hormones being used to prevent infection.  There are two small studies going on right now to test the effect of giving them to patients who are in hospital with COVID-19.


That's true and I wasn’t actually paying attention to the “prevention” part of his post. Looks like it’s being tested only on those already infected.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #597 on: May 03, 2020, 04:44:59 PM »
It's to your credit that you didn't fall for the misleading characterization.  That sort of "reporting" has been used to tout the chlorquine and other solutions without the proper caveats or clarifications.  As far as I understand the situation, the only chemical or biologically active treatment that has yielded results is remdesivir, but that is also being mischaracterized and overstated.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #598 on: May 04, 2020, 01:18:15 PM »
It's to your credit that you didn't fall for the misleading characterization.  That sort of "reporting" has been used to tout the chlorquine and other solutions without the proper caveats or clarifications.  As far as I understand the situation, the only chemical or biologically active treatment that has yielded results is remdesivir, but that is also being mischaracterized and overstated.

Remdesivir reduces average hospitalization from 15 to 11 days without increasing mortality as the malaria drug did. Its significant, because if it can be given sooner it is likely to be more effective because of how anti-virals work; the earlier the treatment starts the more effective it is. Reducing hospitalization stay time and potentially reducing future hospitalizations is significant in preventing overloads to the medical community. But you are right to view it realistically, a 11 day hospital stay is still extremely significant and there wasn't much to report about reduced mortality.

Also without significant increases to PPE and compartmentalization of covid patients so hospitals can return to much of their other regular work the medical community is going to be facing continued stress and hardship over the summer. I think NYC should be filling up the Javid center with covid patients and allowing their hospitals to return to other regular care. Such dedicated facilities may be needed other places too. Potentially allowing medical staff to rotate through the covid facilities for 2 week or month long tours of duty to try to avoid the burn out that is starting to happen from the increased stress they are facing in the hot zones and ICUs.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #599 on: May 04, 2020, 01:20:19 PM »
Quote
Also without significant increases to PPE and compartmentalization of covid patients so hospitals can return to much of their other regular work the medical community is going to be facing continued stress and hardship over the summer. I think NYC should be filling up the Javid center with covid patients and allowing their hospitals to return to other regular care. Such dedicated facilities may be needed other places too. Potentially allowing medical staff to rotate through the covid facilities for 2 week or month long tours of duty to try to avoid the burn out that is starting to happen from the increased stress they are facing in the hot zones and ICUs.

A novel idea appropriate to dealing with the novel coronavirus.