Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

US Presidential Election 2020

1…8384868889…184

Comments

  • #4252
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,162 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    StringerBell wrote: »
    I am curious to know what the two lads, Eagle Eye and Rjd I think, apologies if wrong, make of the latest on the Tara Reade accusation given their positions to this point and refusal to accept the holes in the (changing) story?

    The story has not been told yet.

    So far we haven't got much bar a very weak USA today hitpiece and a softball interview where Biden was not asked about the other women who have accused him of been sexually inappropriate and the senate records are a mystery.

    Reade needs to do an interview, but she should not rush. I imagine its not a good time for her, the abuse online from BlueMaga and DNC establishment is relentless but to be expected. You don't take on a sacred cow like Biden and not face serious reprecussions.

    She could be lying, but until she speaks she deserves some respect especially when you look at the history of Biden.


  • #4253
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,207 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Specifically the latest developments I meant, sorry if that wasn't clear. I have read your take on things already which is why I was curious to know if there is any change at all or do you have any thoughts?

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #4254
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    The amount of loaded words in the previous post is hilarious. Literally like something out of Gateway Pundit.

    MSNBC approached Reade for an interview. She refused.

    She has now pulled out of an interview she had scheduled with Fox.

    The more I think about it, Biden handled that interview very well yesterday. He was firm but struck just the right tone in what he said, and crucially, came across as very believable. It was a gamble to make a public refutation of the allegation because by doing so he was giving it oxygen, but it paid off for him.


  • #4255
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,162 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    StringerBell wrote: »
    Specifically the latest developments I meant, sorry if that wasn't clear. I have read your take on things already which is why I was curious to know if there is any change at all or do you have any thoughts?

    I don't think its a massive gamechanger either way to be honest.

    https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1256671133186822150

    That's from the man covering it and who broke the Kavanaugh allegations.

    I don't really know how this gets resolved one way or other, unsure we will get the senate records and then who looks at them......but yep Reade must sit down with a journalist who is not going to do the dirty work of Trump or Biden so ideally Chris Wallace sooner rather than later.


  • #4256
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    In March 2020 Reade edited the article she wrote on Medium in April 2019 from “this is not a story about sexual misconduct” to “this is not ONLY a story about sexual misconduct”.

    Reade said to Katie Halper on March 31, 2020: "I actually did come forward in 1993 but not to the press. But I went through protocol and complained".

    Halper: "What was your complaint about?"

    Reade: "Sexual harassment."

    https://twitter.com/ReadeAlexandra/status/1240381639009554432

    Yet now she says she didn't accuse Biden of sexual assault or sexual harrassment in her supposed 1993 complaint.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/02/tara-reade-joe-biden-accusation-sexual-assault-report

    She's all over the place. She was even contradicting her own quotes to the AP in a tweet tonight.


  • #4257
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,162 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Ok.

    I'm going to relisten to the podcast with Halper [60 mins of someone who is useless at this sort of thing] and Reade next week and run it past the newest developments.Until that and until she speaks to whoever I don't see any point in giving my opinion on this issue anymore unless something major comes up. That's not me saying Biden is definitely guilty or innocent, its just me going to see how it plays out.

    At the moment I am on the fence to say the least. Biden isn't exactly the most trustworthy , but Reade does need to speak someone in the next few weeks.

    I wouldn't take the Amy K stuff to seriously, running to be the VP of the man. Its no more meaningful than a female GOP senator saying nice things about the President who has a mere 24 accusations of sexual inappropriate actions.


  • #4258
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,516 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    If the allegation turns out to be false I can see the base inventing some sort of conspiracy where Reid was threatened by agents of the deep state.


  • #4259
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,233 ✭✭✭✭briany


    kowloon wrote: »
    If the allegation turns out to be false I can see the base inventing some sort of conspiracy where Reid was threatened by agents of the deep state.

    Trump's supporters might be proof that paranoid schizophrenia can be coordinated among a large group of people.


  • #4260
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    briany wrote: »
    What's Trump actually *done* in his 4 years in office? His great wall is nowhere near completion. What about all these manufacturing and coal jobs he said he'd bring back? Is Hillary in prison? .

    At the level that most people care about (I.e most voters won’t care, for example, as to how the Army specifically is viewing the leadership): The two major legislative achievements have been the tax reform and criminal justice reform bills. One partisan, one bipartisan. There is also reduced foreign military involvement (which can be argued to be a bad thing with respect the Kurds), and one can argue the renegotiation of trade deals with various Asian and American countries (and the Mexico deal demanded worker reform in Mexico which happened (previously unions weren’t a thing, really)), pulling out of TPP or the increase in defense expenditure of NATO countries following his bluster. Similarly, the withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal is certainly contentious, but not universally so. Same with banning bump stocks on rifles. You may not like the withdrawal from the Paris treaty (which was never ratified by Congress, so never in force in the first place), but a lot of voters are happy enough with it. Known illegal crossings of the Southern border have dropped, and wall is either being upgraded or (finally) newly built, though obviously Mexico isn’t paying for it (though they do seem to have started to enforce their own southern border) and barely 500 miles of the 2,000 will be done by the end of the year (with an additional 250 miles underway: Coronavirus has not stopped wall construction). Two conservative Supreme Court justices appointed, though interestingly, they are conservative in judicial philosophy, not so much political ruling: If you look at the way they have voted, they are the least likely pair of judges to vote with each other in decades, which means that one or the other is likely to vote with the “liberal” wing of judges. I believe the number of federal judges as a whole appointed under his tenure is approaching somewhere over 200, over a quarter of the federal judiciary. And, mockery aside, (because it’s just so much fun we all do it), Space Force has been created, the first new military branch in six decades, which few people in uniform or the defense environment seem to think is a bad idea and has been suggested or recommended for nearly two decades.

    Of course, there are plenty of things which he has achieved which can be generally perceived to be negative, but I’m assuming you are referring to things he can claim positively to run on in a campaign. Biden can use the negatives. Obviously some of the things which might have been campaign claims before Coronavirus are no longer available, like “low black/Hispanic/Asian jobless rate”. There is also the unstated alternative, “what policies have been avoided by voting Trump instead of Clinton?” You don’t have to like Trump to have voted Republican because you didn’t like much of the Democratic platform, which applies just as much to Biden.

    Your question prompted me to do a googling for “neutral assessment of Trump accomplishments”. Disturbingly, there seems to be no such a comprehensive thing. Even the politifact Trump-o-meter campaign promise tracker seems to have few entries after 2018. WaPo’s tracker seems to be more up to date, however, though behind a paywall. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-promise-tracker/
    One can see, however, they are rating 23 campaign promises kept, 7 started, 25 broken, 7 compromised. For comparison, the Obamameter from politifact shows Obama at 48% kept, 27% compromised, 25% broken. (Number 3 of the top five in their list is “secure the borders” incidentally). The Economist seems to be doing a series of articles on his record, unfortunately also behind a paywall.

    There are interesting results within the google result, however. For example,
    [url] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_richard_baris/trump_s_first_year_accomplishments_compiled_in_shockingly_long_list/[/url]

    Looking back on President Donald Trump’s first year in office, he has compiled a shockingly strong record and long list of accomplishments. As was also the case with his rise to the presidency, President Trump has broken several records for a first-year commander-in-chief and fulfilled many of his key campaign promises.
    Note the footnote,
    Whether you agree with them all policy-wise or consider them significant accomplishments, is irrelevant. As a data journalism-centered site, we find records noteworthy and this is yet another record. The previous record was held by President Harry S. Truman.

    2018 from RCP. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/30/trumps_top_10_achievements_of_2018_139046.html

    A brief list of successes and failures from Dec 2019 here. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biggest-accomplishments-and-failures-heading-into-2020-2019-12#failure-impeachment-11

    It would be foolish to think that Trump has achieved nothing he can rely on in a campaign in a full term. You may or may not personally agree with some of them, but he hasn’t sat there doing nothing but make a fool of himself either.


  • Advertisement
  • #4261
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    27% of the available electorate voted for Trump in 2016. The turnout was abysmal, even by US standards.

    All it needs is a decent turnout and he's gone
    A couple of months ago, I did a bit of digging into the voter turnout in the swing states. Turnout in California of an additional million wouldn’t much affect the election, but an additional 25,000 in Ohio might. Turned out that where it counted, voter turnout was very high, often greater than in, say, Canada, Ireland or the UK. 87% of registered voters in Pennsylvania voted, for example. You really think turnout can get much higher?

    The system here is borked, but with already high turnout in the swing states, it’s not the panacea to turn to.

    Post is here. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111986255&postcount=1795


  • #4262
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    A couple of months ago, I did a bit of digging into the voter turnout in the swing states. Turnout in California of an additional million wouldn’t much affect the election, but an additional 25,000 in Ohio might. Turned out that where it counted, voter turnout was very high, often greater than in, say, Canada, Ireland or the UK. 87% of registered voters in Pennsylvania voted, for example. You really think turnout can get much higher?

    The system here is borked, but with already high turnout in the swing states, it’s not the panacea to turn to.

    Post is here. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111986255&postcount=1795

    Maybe you're right, a bigger turnout could just mean a landslide popular vote and an electoral college loss.

    I think it's worth looking at who didn't turn out in 2016. Blacks and young people stayed home and they would have favoured the Dems in a massive way.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #4263
    da_miser
    Registered Users Posts: 640 ✭✭✭da_miser


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    You can get good odds on him right now, stick part of the farm on now and post up a screenshot.

    10/11 for a Trump win is not what i would call good odds, but it does siginal that the bookie believe he is a sure thing


  • #4264
    da_miser
    Registered Users Posts: 640 ✭✭✭da_miser


    Brian? wrote: »
    Who's plan? The Illuminati lizard people?

    A senile Biden can out debate Trump and Biden is far from Senile.

    Have you seen the clip from just a few days ago when Hillary endorsed Joe? he was falling asleep during it, the man is fading right before our eyes, only someone with a bad dose of TDS cant see it


  • #4265
    da_miser
    Registered Users Posts: 640 ✭✭✭da_miser


    Rjd2 wrote: »

    Reade needs to do an interview, but she should not rush. I imagine its not a good time for her, the abuse online from BlueMaga and DNC establishment is relentless but to be expected. You don't take on a sacred cow like Biden and not face serious reprecussions.

    She could be lying, but until she speaks she deserves some respect especially when you look at the history of Biden.

    All of the main stream media TV stations in the USA have not requested a interview with her except FOX which she has agreed to do, she has let it be know she has no problem going on TV to be interviewed, yet none bar Fox have taken up the offer.
    The media bias in full view for all to see, if she was saying Trump did it ,she would be on all the stations 24 hours a day


  • #4266
    da_miser
    Registered Users Posts: 640 ✭✭✭da_miser


    sid waddell wrote: »
    The amount of loaded words in the previous post is hilarious. Literally like something out of Gateway Pundit.

    MSNBC approached Reade for an interview. She refused.

    She has now pulled out of an interview she had scheduled with Fox.

    The more I think about it, Biden handled that interview very well yesterday. He was firm but struck just the right tone in what he said, and crucially, came across as very believable. It was a gamble to make a public refutation of the allegation because by doing so he was giving it oxygen, but it paid off for him.

    Could it be the clearly visible deterioration of Joe is why the Republicans dont want to rock the boat, get him locked down as the nomination and then attack him, leave no time for a change, once joes is a sure thing the gloves will come off


  • Advertisement
  • #4267
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Edit: just going to collate these all into one post instead.
    da_miser wrote: »
    10/11 for a Trump win is not what i would call good odds, but it does siginal that the bookie believe he is a sure thing

    If you consider 10/11 to be a 'sure thing' (and thus 6/5 which Biden is currently at to be a 'no hoper') I would advise you to keep far, far away from the bookies in general. :p
    da_miser wrote: »
    All of the main stream media TV stations in the USA have not requested a interview with her except FOX which she has agreed to do, she has let it be know she has no problem going on TV to be interviewed, yet none bar Fox have taken up the offer.
    The media bias in full view for all to see, if she was saying Trump did it ,she would be on all the stations 24 hours a day
    You may have missed the development yesterday. After Biden the other day called for any record of Reade a alleged complaint to be made public, she has now yet again changed her story to claim the complaint never stated sexual assault of harrassment - and abruptly canceled that Fox interview your post is referring to (which was due on later today).

    It's an interesting approach by Biden, calling to get it out in the open rather than desperately trying to hide and cover everything up as Trump has been doing with all investigations relating to him. And for Reade, all these story changes and inconsistencies really are not helping her claim much at all.
    da_miser wrote: »
    Could it be the clearly visible deterioration of Joe is why the Republicans dont want to rock the boat, get him locked down as the nomination and then attack him, leave no time for a change, once joes is a sure thing the gloves will come off

    They've been eagerly trying to go for Biden since last year, which is what the crux of the while Ukraine whistleblower case was about - trying to get foreign nations to lie about investigating Biden in order to hurt his candidacy.

    Personally I don't really understand why at all, but a lot of center ground voters seem to like Biden quite a bit in the US, and the Trump admin has seemed more scared of him than they were if any of the other Democrat candidates for over a year now.
    da_miser wrote: »
    Have you seen the clip from just a few days ago when Hillary endorsed Joe? he was falling asleep during it, the man is fading right before our eyes, only someone with a bad dose of TDS cant see it

    I hadn't seen that, and Clinton should just stay away to be honest, but can you please point out which point you are referring go in the video where Biden is "falling asleep"?



  • #4268
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 914 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    da_miser wrote: »
    10/11 for a Trump win is not what i would call good odds, but it does siginal that the bookie believe he is a sure thing

    10/11 is decent for a guy you think will win in a landslide.

    The Democrat candidate, whomever that may be, is also 10/11. Maybe the bookies believe the both of them are sure things.


  • #4269
    da_miser
    Registered Users Posts: 640 ✭✭✭da_miser


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    E


    I hadn't seen that, and Clinton should just stay away to be honest, but can you please point out which point you are referring go in the video where Biden is "falling asleep"?


    Nice Guardian video, totally neutral reporting from them on all things Trump, they wouldn't dare think of showing only a partial piece of the endorsement/s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzCi4-4S2PQ

    https://www.wibc.com/blogs/chicks/watch-joe-biden-nods-off-during-virtual-townhall-with-hillary-clinton/

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/28/joe-biden-appears-fall-asleep-hillary-clinton-town/


  • #4270
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I've seen that posture before. He takes notes a lot and spends much of his time reading / scribbling, those links are no less curated or editorialised so slamming the Guardian is a bit rich. The Washington Times would be very Rep friendly for instance.

    The debate with Sanders had a lot of that kind of note taking, it looked like he wasn't listening. Of course if you're predisposed to the dementia or geriatric angle then it's a good confirmation of that bias. And because this is how these debates work, no I don't support Biden blah blah. My posting record proves that. We all have biased but it's clear as day Bidens pronounced age had people searching for proof of senility. I think he's too old, but not for reasons of cognitive inability.


  • #4271
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    da_miser wrote: »
    Have you seen the clip from just a few days ago when Hillary endorsed Joe? he was falling asleep during it, the man is fading right before our eyes, only someone with a bad dose of TDS cant see it

    No, I haven't. Can you share it?


    So who's plan was the Biden/Clinton ticket?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • #4272
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    Edit: just going to collate these all into one post instead.



    If you consider 10/11 to be a 'sure thing' (and thus 6/5 which Biden is currently at to be a 'no hoper') I would advise you to keep far, far away from the bookies in general. :p


    You may have missed the development yesterday. After Biden the other day called for any record of Reade a alleged complaint to be made public, she has now yet again changed her story to claim the complaint never stated sexual assault of harrassment - and abruptly canceled that Fox interview your post is referring to (which was due on later today).

    It's an interesting approach by Biden, calling to get it out in the open rather than desperately trying to hide and cover everything up as Trump has been doing with all investigations relating to him. And for Reade, all these story changes and inconsistencies really are not helping her claim much at all.



    They've been eagerly trying to go for Biden since last year, which is what the crux of the while Ukraine whistleblower case was about - trying to get foreign nations to lie about investigating Biden in order to hurt his candidacy.

    Personally I don't really understand why at all, but a lot of center ground voters seem to like Biden quite a bit in the US, and the Trump admin has seemed more scared of him than they were if any of the other Democrat candidates for over a year now.



    I hadn't seen that, and Clinton should just stay away to be honest, but can you please point out which point you are referring go in the video where Biden is "falling asleep"?


    That's the smoking gun? Lol. He looks down briefly!

    Thanks for that, I'm sure the anti Biden posters would have posted an edited version of the above and claimed it as evidence he's senile.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #4273
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    So are we going to all jump straight to getting the pitchforks out for biden after the sexual assault acusations or do we only do that for republicans ?

    There seems to be an awful lot of apologism for it on twitter, people saying it doesnt matter or calling the women liars, the same who were #ibelieveher for kavanaugh


  • #4274
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,207 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    I would assume if you were just straight out I believe her regardless you will attack Biden whereas if you were I don't believe her/I don't care you will now find yourself in the funny position if defending Biden right?

    Now, if you were one of those evidenced based critical thinking people I would assume you would continue to judge each situation on its merits as per usual?

    Twitter doesn't really fall into the latter category of people for the most part I find going off what gets referenced back to Twitter. I guess, the loud minority need a place to rant and rave and when aren't storming buildings armed to teeth to peacefully protest or whatever the extreme lefts counter protest modus operandi is then Twitter is as good a place as any.

    Who really cares? I think at this point we have seen anyway that the way to get through these things politically is judge carry on regardless. **** the noise, brazen it out. Now Biden hasn't played ball in that regard by asking for all the records to be released and engaging in the process rather than just denying everything and refusing to acknowledge it but I would imagine he will be fine.

    The background noise will continue, as it always does. Twitter is a good place for that.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #4275
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    StringerBell wrote: »

    Now, if you were one of those evidenced based critical thinking people I would assume you would continue to judge each situation on its merits as per usual?

    It's amazing how few of such people seem to be active on the internet, or maybe there are a lot more of them than I think and they just get drowned out by bad faith arguments like the post previous to yours.

    I would have thought evaluating allegations based on their actual merits should be a given for any rational person, but apparently not, at least as far as many of the people who are pushing this Biden allegation are concerned.

    Apparently the biggest sin in their eyes and in the eyes of bad faith operators like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Katie Halper etc. as well as the entirety of the Republican propaganda industry is to think that Christine Blasey Ford was credible and Tara Reade isn't.

    They push the fake notion that you shouldn't evaluate each case on its merits. According to them, the two cases are directly equaivalent and directly linked. That is incredible bad faith arguing, it's pure trolling and gaslighting.

    They simply can't get their heads around the fact that many people, reasonable people looked at Blasey Ford's story and her character and found her highlly credible, whereas they looked at Reade's and didn't find her credible.

    Or, much more likely, they know full well that people who approach things in good faith have an ability to judge cases on their merits - but because the bad faith operators have a vested interest in taking down Biden, they falsely equate the two allegations for purely cynical purposes.

    Let's be clear here. The Republican party wants to destroy the #metoo movement because it is almost completely immoral and has no problem with sexual abuse and rape. You do that by dividing it based on a false allegation against the Democratic nominee, by exploiting good faith with bad faith.

    And the useful idiots (or are some of them something else entirely?) on the dirtbag left happily play along with it for their own nefarious ends.

    The election is six months from today. Prepare for six months of active Russian measures and Goebbels like propaganda from the Republican media industrial bull**** machine, and trolling, gaslighting and infantile, reality-distorting bad faith arguments ad nauseum from Trump supporters, Trump supporters who are too gutless to say they are Trump supporters, and dirtbag left nihilists.


  • #4276
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 914 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    So are we going to all jump straight to getting the pitchforks out for biden after the sexual assault acusations or do we only do that for republicans ?

    There seems to be an awful lot of apologism for it on twitter, people saying it doesnt matter or calling the women liars, the same who were #ibelieveher for kavanaugh

    You should read the last few days worth of posts. Countless posts on the same topic if this is what you're interested in.

    As an aside, the Kavanaugh comparison is particularly tiresome. Did you know Kavanaugh had multiple claims of sexual assault or harassment against him? They were all investigated and some were deemed credible and others weren't. The claim against Biden doesn't appear particularly credible at the moment and on that basis should probably be dismissed the same as the Kavanaugh claims, unless more compelling evidence comes to light.


  • #4277
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    The latest allegation against Biden is as follows:

    In May 2008 he supposedly sexually harrassed Eva Murry, the then 14 year old niece of former Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell. Biden "complimented Murry on the size of her breasts".

    The story was supposedly based on seven sources.

    The only problem with the allegation is, Biden wasn't even there. The allegation is a straight up lie.

    https://twitter.com/BrookeSingman/status/1256964479755132928

    Not only is there a concerted Republican smear campaign to take down Biden, there's a concerted Republican smear campaign to destroy the #metoo movement.

    And supposedly left-leaning media organisations like Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept (Ryan Grim here is DC Bureau Chief for them) are actively participating in these smear campaigns.

    https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1256989122872463362


  • #4278
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    da_miser wrote: »
    Nice Guardian video, totally neutral reporting from them on all things Trump, they wouldn't dare think of showing only a partial piece of the endorsement/s

    Ah ok, I hadnt seen the video but not have pulled up the full endorsement.



    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HRkxlPE-ZaQ

    You're really trying to claim he falls sleep at the 1 minute mark here?

    If so, are you of the impression that he falls asleep the 8-10 other times he looks downward in the video too?


  • #4279
    duploelabs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,720 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Please find any post where I used the 'creepy Joe' or any other nickname for Joe Biden. If you want to save time then don't bother because you won't find it anywhere.
    It doesn't matter if you see Reade's claim as 50/50 or 30/70 in Biden's favour. There is still the possibility that she is a victim and as such nobody should be using any media to suggest she is a liar.

    I usually am on the app on my phone which is no longer supported by boards.ie so I can't put in links. Even if I write in the link it disappears when I post the message.
    I have put up posts with videos and links in them on the rare occasion that I find myself at a laptop.
    The one thing you are guaranteed with me is honesty. I never tell lies or put up links from untrustworthy sources like sid waddell.


    I don't hear you giving out when somebody suggests there's an issue with Trump as regards his mental health declining. Do you think that's ok but it's not ok if you believe that to be the case with Biden?

    I've told no lies. It's my personal opinion that Biden is in the early stages of dementia based on all the debates I've seen him take part in.

    What do you think my opinion on the Tara Reade accusation is? I think I've made it clear enough times before you posted this. I'm not taking sides on it. I'm not willing to believe all the half truths and slanted stories coming from either side. I have said it'll never see a court and it'll never be proven because it's basically a he said/she said situation. The only thing I've said is that there is potential that she is a victim, whether you like it or not, and nobody should be using any media platform to suggest she is lying outside of Joe Biden himself.

    Have you a profession qualification in the medical field to make a diagnosis? Can any medical professional make a diagnosis on a single (non existent) video.
    So you think that Joe Biden is creepy based on a clearly biased view? So far we've no testimony or documentation to support your view. Yes every woman who has a complaint should be listened to and investigation instigated based on relevant evidence. But in this situation we have none.
    However here is witness testimony for another presidential candidate.

    "Defendant X initiated sexual contact with Plaintiff at four different parties.

    On the fourth and final sexual encounter with Defendant X, Defendant X tied Plaintiff
    to a bed, exposed himself to Plaintiff, and then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff. During the
    course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff loudly pleaded with Defendant X to stop but
    with no effect. Defendant X responded to Plaintiff’s pleas by violently striking Plaintiff in
    the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted"

    That is witness testimony under threat of perjury, the witness then withdrew their complaint due to threats and intimidation. Straight out of Roy Cohens playbook

    https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Johnson_TrumpEpstein_Lawsuit.pdf

    And funnily enough, I was able to do all of this from my phone so I completely refute your protests of an inability to post links to back up your claim


  • #4280
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,580 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I'm not sure what happened here. I've deleted several posts where users were taking potshots at each other and issued multiple bans. Please be civil and constructive. Thanks.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #4281
    Blueshoe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    In a farcical turn of events the metoo lawyer Lisa Bloom has come out and said she is sorry to Tara Reade, she knows Joe Biden is 'handsey" and she believes her but she still supports Joe.

    A farce. It's anyone but Trump. Morals out the window.

    https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/1256327017911382018?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • #4282
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    In a farcical turn of events the metoo lawyer Lisa Bloom has come out and said she is sorry to Tara Reade, she knows Joe Biden is 'handsey" and she believes her but she still supports Joe.

    A farce. It's anyone but Trump. Morals out the window.

    https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/1256327017911382018?s=19

    How could she possibly believe her? All the evidence she has is the allegation.

    The people who always believe are as bad as the people who always disbelieve. Starting with a belief before there is evidence, is one of the stupidest things someone can do.

    What ever happened to waiting until there's enough evidence to reach a conclusion?


  • #4283
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    How could she possibly believe her? All the evidence she has is the allegation.

    The people who always believe are as bad as the people who always disbelieve. Starting with a belief before there is evidence, is one of the stupidest things someone can do.

    What ever happened to waiting until there's enough evidence to reach a conclusion?

    Easy, it is all about money. These cases is how she makes her money and she doesn't want to scare off potential future clients by not appearing to believe every complaint.


  • #4284
    Remy Calm Strikeout
    Posts: 13,688 ✭✭✭✭ Remy Calm Strikeout


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    How could she possibly believe her? All the evidence she has is the allegation.

    The people who always believe are as bad as the people who always disbelieve. Starting with a belief before there is evidence, is one of the stupidest things someone can do.

    What ever happened to waiting until there's enough evidence to reach a conclusion?

    'Believe' is the literal definition of accepting something without proof.


  • #4285
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    In a farcical turn of events the metoo lawyer Lisa Bloom has come out and said she is sorry to Tara Reade, she knows Joe Biden is 'handsey" and she believes her but she still supports Joe.

    A farce. It's anyone but Trump. Morals out the window.

    It is a binary choice. Even leaving aside the huge difference in the two on policy and judge appointment that might lead someone to overlook private issues, voters have the choice between either Biden with this single quite questionable allegation or Trump with more than two dozen much more credible complaints, along with him admitting to it on tape.

    Falling so easily for a false equivalency shows a lack of a mature understanding of morals.


  • #4286
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,207 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    The senate has rejected Bidens request to search for the records.

    Think we can put this one to bed now?

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #4287
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,162 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/05/the-attacks-on-tara-reade-are-unbelievable-bull****

    Very detailed piece on the abysmal hitpiece from Biden backer Michael Stern which did the round the other day and the rape apologist lines of attack that were deployed.

    Its a little long and obviously won't get the numbers that Stern got but its good its out there. I was going to say it's more articulate than me, but not saying much and she needs an editor but ah well.
    StringerBell wrote: »
    The senate has rejected Bidens request to search for the records.

    Think we can put this one to bed now?

    Unless she does an interview I think that is fair,,its very much a case of he said/she said and with the virus numbers likely to get even worse than I think the media will get bored unless we get new developments.

    Whether that is right or wrong is a debate for another day, its just the way that is.

    I


  • #4288
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,162 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    StringerBell wrote: »
    The senate has rejected Bidens request to search for the records.

    Think we can put this one to bed now?

    And also I don't think a lot of the shrewder Republican senators want to touch this because they know about the 24 allegations aimed at Trump. The louder the Reade story gets the more spotlight comes towards Trump.


  • #4289
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,207 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Don't think that factors into it if I'm honest. They may not want to open the door on some of their own indiscretions or cover ups for sure but Trumps don't bother any of his supporters and this has been tried and tested at this stage so I don't think it really is a consideration.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #4290
    VanishingPoint
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5 ✭VanishingPoint


    Can't post the link but there's a good article on Vox by a journalist who has been in contact with Reade for over a year. All she stops short of is calling Reade a liar.
    The agonizing story of Tara Reade
    I started reporting on Tara Reade’s story a year ago. Here’s what I found, and where I’m stuck.

    By Laura McGann on May 7, 2020 1:55 pm

    Reade now says "all my social media has been hacked".

    Yeah right.

    Think it's also pertinent to mention the fake sexual assault allegation against Anthony Fauci which was revealed today.

    Trump's "Death Star" is certainly cranking into action.


  • Advertisement
  • #4291
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,162 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Anything Wohl does never gets any mileage thankfully. I do wonder though how much more he can keep this up for going to jail.

    https://twitter.com/MattFountain1/status/1258524341261623296

    This is interesting, doesn't mean Biden is guilty, but does give a little more merit to her claims although some will probably say that was Putin. :eek:

    She has an interview with Megyn Kelly which will be interesting, Kelly isn't the best to say the least, but this is an area she does actually deserve some respect , she wouldn't be never -Trump but she definitely would not be a Trump bootlicker so as close to a balanced interviewer as possible.


  • #4292
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    Anything Wohl does never gets any mileage thankfully. I do wonder though how much more he can keep this up for going to jail.

    https://twitter.com/MattFountain1/status/1258524341261623296

    This is interesting, doesn't mean Biden is guilty, but does give a little more merit to her claims although some will probably say that was Putin. :eek:

    She has an interview with Megyn Kelly which will be interesting, Kelly isn't the best to say the least, but this is an area she does actually deserve some respect , she wouldn't be never -Trump but she definitely would not be a Trump bootlicker so as close to a balanced interviewer as possible.

    Doesn't add any merit to her claims, as it doesn't say Biden did anything and harassment rather than assault aligns with the story she, her contemporaneous witnesses originally told before they all changed their story.

    She has brought in two new lawyers to support her with her claims, one is a huge Trump and republican donor and the other a writer and editor of a Russian propaganda network. At least she isn't being subtle about her backers at this point


  • #4293
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    VanishingPoint wrote: »
    Can't post the link but there's a good article on Vox by a journalist who has been in contact with Reade for over a year. All she stops short of is calling Reade a liar.



    Reade now says "all my social media has been hacked".

    Yeah right.

    Think it's also pertinent to mention the fake sexual assault allegation against Anthony Fauci which was revealed today.

    Trump's "Death Star" is certainly cranking into action.

    Here's the link to the article. It reveals the new fact that another one of her widely quoted 'witnesses' changed their story, to go along with how we know her brother has already admitted to doing the same after being coached by a journalist.

    Unless you are either in the 'believe claims by all women no matter what' camp or are simply hoping that something comes out to hurt Biden then I just can't see how people can see it as credible at this point.

    https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1258455429706919938?s=20


  • #4294
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,516 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    At the very least, the allegation against Biden is shifting the focus away from Trump's constant ****-ups.


  • #4295
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    kowloon wrote: »
    At the very least, the allegation against Biden is shifting the focus away from Trump's constant ****-ups.

    Is it though? I see it constantly bouncing around the Bernie Bro echo chamber on twitter but aside from a day or two last week and the odd article/op ed it hasn't gotten any traction in the mainstream media, which is far more focused on covid, jobs numbers, the 'pardon' of Flynn. Even Fox news hasn't shown too much interest and are far more interested in the whole Flynn situation.

    There is definitely scope for the media to go full 'but her emails' again with the documentation in Delaware but so far they have resisted that urge.


  • #4296
    Melanchthon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Is it though? I see it constantly bouncing around the Bernie Bro echo chamber on twitter but aside from a day or two last week and the odd article/op ed it hasn't gotten any traction in the mainstream media, which is far more focused on covid, jobs numbers, the 'pardon' of Flynn. Even Fox news hasn't shown too much interest and are far more interested in the whole Flynn situation.

    There is definitely scope for the media to go full 'but her emails' again with the documentation in Delaware but so far they have resisted that urge.

    Can't Biden still be replaced as the Democrat nomination at this point? Even if the story is mainly bouncing around the Bernie supporters camp it will still help the Republicans as it might suppress turn out of a mainly Democrat demographic. Even that Vox story isn't particularly great as it seems to point to her story of Biden being creepy if not sexually abusive.

    Its asking a lot of people that got very very angry about the Ford/Kauvanagh thing to then forget about this as the Democrats pressed very hard on that story with little too no real evidence either, I have read a bit of stuff arguing that the two situations are very different but I don't see how Ford's case was much stronger than this.

    Don't support Trump but this is something the Democrats walked themselves into by holding onto the Ford letters until Kauvanagh was in place to be selected for the supreme court.


  • Advertisement
  • #4297
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Melanchthon wrote: »
    Can't Biden still be replaced as the Democrat nomination at this point? Even if the story is mainly bouncing around the Bernie supporters camp it will still help the Republicans as it might suppress turn out of a mainly Democrat demographic. Even that Vox story isn't particularly great as it seems to point to her story of Biden being creepy if not sexually abusive.

    Basically not unless Biden drops out.

    I don't see this story suppressing any votes that wouldn't have twisted themselves in knots to find another excuse to not vote. If you have such an issue with this story then the fact that Trump has more than two dozen more credible claims against him should push you out.
    Its asking a lot of people that got very very angry about the Ford/Kauvanagh thing to then forget about this as the Democrats pressed very hard on that story with little too no real evidence either, I have read a bit of stuff arguing that the two situations are very different but I don't see how Ford's case was much stronger than this

    Don't support Trump but this is something the Democrats walked themselves into by holding onto the Ford letters until Kauvanagh was in place to be selected for the supreme court.

    Though they are similar, there are very key differences between the two:
    1. The core part of Ford's story didn't change repeatedly. Reade's story changes nearly every time she speaks
    2. Ford went under oath and allowed herself to be cross examined. Reade has avoided making any statement that could be legally held against her and even dodged any on camera media scrutiny, until now where she selected nearly the easiest interviewer possible for the situation
    3. Ford's contemporaneous witnesses didn't change their story. Reade's either didn't remember it or changed their story every time she did
    4. Ford's background had no reason to make a false claim and your issue of timing is on the democrats. Reade had reasons why hurting Biden now would be beneficial to what she supports, even tweeted that she was waiting for the right timing to drop the story to hurt him most - 'Timing... wait for it... tic toc'.

    Most of the whataboutism regarding the democrats is misguided though understandable. The content of what they said during the hearings and the media were generally a lot more nuanced than the soundbites that made the headlines


  • #4298
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,162 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Doesn't add any merit to her claims, as it doesn't say Biden did anything and harassment rather than assault aligns with the story she, her contemporaneous witnesses originally told before they all changed their story.

    She has brought in two new lawyers to support her with her claims, one is a huge Trump and republican donor and the other a writer and editor of a Russian propaganda network. At least she isn't being subtle about her backers at this point

    She has been struggling to find lawyers from all accounts which is understandable as Biden is one of the most powerful politicians in the world.

    The Trump donor has also defended victims of Weinstein and represented a number of Fox News employees in cases alleging gender and racial discrimination at the network.

    He went on MSNBC and defended Ford and has also contributed to Hakeem Jeffries who was involved in impeachment from the Dems POV which may have been his last political donation. He hasn't given a cent to Biden or Trump for 2020.

    Will read up on the other lawyer.


  • #4299
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    She has been struggling to find lawyers from all accounts which is understandable as Biden is one of the most powerful politicians in the world.

    As things stand, and as they will return to if he doesn't win, his power is not all that great actually. Also, the core premise of the point doesn't make a lot of sense - high profile cases are a goldmine for lawyers.


  • #4300
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Biden being too hot for lawyers to take on makes no sense against the series of lawsuits taken against Trump - arguably the most powerful man in the world right now. I make no attempt to even pretend I'm up to speed on this case but Bidens public stature would not factor into any harassment case. TBH thinking that way feels a short step from conspiracy theory.


  • #4301
    Melanchthon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Basically not unless Biden drops out.

    I don't see this story suppressing any votes that wouldn't have twisted themselves in knots to find another excuse to not vote. If you have such an issue with this story then the fact that Trump has more than two dozen more credible claims against him should push you out.



    Though they are similar, there are very key differences between the two:
    1. The core part of Ford's story didn't change repeatedly. Reade's story changes nearly every time she speaks
    2. Ford went under oath and allowed herself to be cross examined. Reade has avoided making any statement that could be legally held against her and even dodged any on camera media scrutiny, until now where she selected nearly the easiest interviewer possible for the situation
    3. Ford's contemporaneous witnesses didn't change their story. Reade's either didn't remember it or changed their story every time she did
    4. Ford's background had no reason to make a false claim and your issue of timing is on the democrats. Reade had reasons why hurting Biden now would be beneficial to what she supports, even tweeted that she was waiting for the right timing to drop the story to hurt him most - 'Timing... wait for it... tic toc'.

    Most of the whataboutism regarding the democrats is misguided though understandable. The content of what they said during the hearings and the media were generally a lot more nuanced than the soundbites that made the headlines

    1- Reade's story changes, Ford didn't know when and where it happened

    2- I agree with you on that one

    3 - Ford's story was vague right? Agree about the changing nature but in this era can someone out someone else as being assaulted that way if they haven't themselves

    4 - by more recent "evidence" the Biden stuff was raised earlier. Ford also didn't raise it all the time he was a senior judge right? It was only once it would have a political impact she brought it too that senator, like as a liberal woman of course taking out or hurting the democrats is beneficial to what she supports, AFAIK she never condemned the senator that held onto her letter.

    In general I think both are pretty vague and possibly driven by partisan politics*, my point is that the stories aren't that dissimilar and if the sexual assault part of the Reade's story is false the other complaints remain. That's my point that the Supreme court stuff might have been a mistep by the Democrats.
    I don't see how it will not make any impact, if a Bernie supporter that is less than enthusiastic about Biden this is just another nudge to stay at home.

    I presume Biden is going to have a female running mate though which if chosen right may mitigate against this, I don't think Harris or Warren are particularly charismatic and considering Bidens age the vice-president is presumably going to be more high profile than normal.

    *On the Ford/Kavanaugh thing in Ireland/UK would it even have been able to be raised as it all occured as juveniles that get records wiped and identity protected


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement