Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Felya]

I find it a bit sealioning-ish to expect people to save links to every single news article they read over the past few weeks, but if you do a quick google you get showered with results that talk about her being (misre)presented as a russian asset or agent or plant: https://i.gyazo.com/9d56dab1d7e3b30b...aa2cd1ab31.png

Are you sure you are not conflating her praise of Putin from a couple of years ago, with current accusations?

- - - Updated - - -

Considering some of those were purple, you even went to those pages. My guess is you didn't find what you were looking for.

Because the only one that was clicked, states that she isn’t an agent in the description. Meaning, it was pointless to click others, since they were not going to accuse her of being one either. As the preview of remaining articles show, it’s in reference to her previous controversy, where she deleted a post praising Putin after a backlash... before the accusation.

[Machismo]

I did find what I was looking for, several articles explaining how journalists are alluding to her being a russian agent or outright implying it.

My claim was that there was a concerted effort going on to smear her as a russian asset. I showed you this very thing happening by showing you several headlines of many different US news sources in a row reporting on it.

And yet, you don't have those to show.

You claimed a smear campaign by the mainstream media, and have yet to deliver on that claim. Your image was of standard headlines, and showed standard reporting.

[Machismo]

How do I show a concerted effort across the media to discredit Tara Reade's credibiility?

What exactly are you looking for?

If it's your claim, I'd hope you can show it. Otherwise, you shouldn't make that claim. I'm looking for evidence to back up your claim. I get that you are struggling, and drowning on this, but holding people accountable for the things they say is rather important.

If you are asking me how you can back up your claim, then maybe you should think twice about making it in the first place.

[Felya]

I did find what I was looking for, several articles explaining how journalists are alluding to her being a russian agent or outright implying it.

This isn’t true. The first article in your image, even explicitly states she isn’t an agent... in its preview. The remaining are discussing her previous controversy. Meaning, asserting that these article are implying or alluding to her being a spy, is your assumption. If she was previously in the news for being in the military, it would be listed in the article. Instead, her previous appearance in the news was for controversial remarks about Putin. You think that implies she is a spy, the articles image go as far as to say she isn’t.

- - - Updated - - -

How do I show a concerted effort across the media to discredit Tara Reade's credibiility?

Define what an effort across the media, to discredit someone, would be.

[Felya]

If you are asking me how you can back up your claim, then maybe you should think twice about making it in the first place.

Would someone who used Bernie praising a dictator as evidence of his incompetence, believe that a news story discussing a controversy over someone else praising Putin... believe that it’s intent was only to defame?

A person who would use such tact, would believe others are doing it too...

[Machismo]

... Because various journalists implied she was one.



No, I admit that I can't find the specific articles I had read right now. Possibly they've already been deleted after backlash, but let's agree on one thing:
These articles do some effort to explain that she isn't a russian asset. Why? Because other journalists have made exactly that accusation before.

Then, your only source actually REFUTES the claim you made against those very sources.

[Felya]

... Because various journalists implied she was one.

My argument is that implied it, because of your expectations in modern age of projecting. You deriving intent from basic reporting, speaks about your tact. Not theirs...

No, I admit that I can't find the specific articles I had read right now. Possibly they've already been deleted after backlash, but let's agree on one thing:
These articles do some effort to explain that she isn't a russian asset. Why? Because other journalists have made exactly that accusation before.

It’s called conditioning...

Edit: I will repeat again... the Russian mention in the articles, is due to a controversy prior to these accusations.

[Machismo]

No, because I've seen you asking people for evidence to back up their claims in the past only for you to either:
A) outright reject whatever they linked
or
B) keep on insisting that it's not enough

So how many links and articles do you need exactly?

I don't think that asking / demanding sources and links is a good way to hold a discussion at all. I think you should simply use it as an internal criteria and throw in a few pinches of salt if people aren't immediately able to provide it.

I'm sorry, but it -is- frustrating - it happens more than often that I did read something a few days or weeks ago and I can't immediately find the article on the first pages of google. I also don't really enjoy having to spend 30 minutes skimming google to find exactly those few articles I had in mind.

So, there is genuinely asking for some sources
-and-
dishonestly asking for some sources with the intent to keep on rejecting them.

You provided an image of a Google search. I looked at two of the sources, and neither showed anything close to a smear campaign. Even you just admitted that those sources aren't running the smear campaign, and then claimed it was other sources, that you cannot find, and cannot provide.

Here's your first two sources, from your image of the search:

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-s...-reade-1497391

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/...-reades-claims

Nope, nothing about what you claim.

Hell, one of those links is to her own Twitter, meaning she's clearly not running a smear campaign against herself. Yes, asking for sources and evidence to back up the bold claims you make is perfectly reasonable. If I claimed that Biden was a member of the KKK, or that Bernie was a closet necrophiliac, I'd hope you'd ask for evidence. As it stands, your only evidence is of sources saying she's not a Russian agent, meaning those mainstream sources are not doing what you claim.

So, if we are to simply take you at your word, all while you have gone out of your way to avoid admitting you are not an American (and won't be a part of the election), then it simply shows your motives. I've asked you several times what country you live in, and where you are from, and you dodged. No, I don't expect you to answer honestly, because it undermines why you are so involves in pushing your agenda and narrative.

So, yes... I'd like to see evidence to back up your claims.

[Felya]

I'd like to see evidence to back up your claims.

You won’t agree on what constitutes evidence:

These articles do some effort to explain that she isn't a russian asset. Why? Because other journalists have made exactly that accusation before.

Basically, because there was a controversy years ago. Where she removed a comment praising Putin, because she got accused of being a supporter. Any current article mentioning the previous controversy, will always be his evidence. Even if said article explicitly states this controversy was meaningless. If them saying she isn’t a spy, is evidence of them claiming she is spy. What isn’t evidence?

[Machismo]

1st of all, it's is against the law to demand people share their GDPR protected information. Or rather I'm legally not obliged to tell you or anyone what country I'm from.

Secondly, I suggest we move past the Tara Reade stuff. I do recall an article from a prominent mainstream site describing her as someone with russian ties and possibly an asset, but I can not find that article right now. I did however internalize that as evidence that the media was doing a bit of effort to try and discredit Tara Reade.

That said, I don't particularly find her claims credible right now due to the fact that she waited over 2 decades with them. Sadly even if we do dismiss the Tara Reade accusation there are still other accusers - and many video clips of Biden touching women and underage and making them feel uncomfortable with it.

I never said you were legally obliged to give the information... that seems like an odd deflection. This is you arguing against shit I simply did not say. I had originally asked for whom you were voting, and you said nobody (in November). Someone else mentioned that you are not even American, and considering you just appealed to GDPR, that pretty much proves you are not an American. In that, one addresses your comments as an outsider, someone who doesn't actually have any skin in the game, so to speak.

You are suggesting we move past the "Tara Reade stuff," does that mean you are going to stop using it as an accusation against Biden? Somehow, I doubt that.

So, I'll take that as a retraction on your part.

[JohnBrown1917]

"Biden did less rape than Trump. Vote Biden!"

Now that is a good tagline, its gonna work out great, i'm sure.

[Theodarzna]

"Biden did less rape than Trump. Vote Biden!"

Now that is a good tagline, its gonna work out great, i'm sure.

The decision to run Biden is a curious political science project. They have essentially of their own volition, muddied the waters by picking a person for whom the best anyone can say is either everything negative about Biden is an elaborate Russian hoax psyop; or when faced with ludicrousness of claiming that, will simply resort to this:


The above statement being absurd as calling the points against Biden to be a Ruskie Psyop, both because they utterly reveal the partisan nature of people's MeToo concerns but also the equally laughable notion of Biden having policies.

[Machismo]

The decision to run Biden is a curious political science project. They have essentially of their own volition, muddied the waters by picking a person for whom the best anyone can say is either everything negative about Biden is an elaborate Russian hoax psyop; or when faced with ludicrousness of claiming that, will simply resort to this:


The above statement being absurd as calling the points against Biden to be a Ruskie Psyop, both because they utterly reveal the partisan nature of people's MeToo concerns but also the equally laughable notion of Biden having policies.

Hmm, your lack of consistency is odd:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ebuke-of-MeToo

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ave-Misgivings

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...of-Sex-Assault

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...avery%E2%80%99

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...me-Biden-guilt

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...f-preservation

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...en-at-All-Cost

[Healing Rain]

Voting for President Trump. Hopefully Oregon does too.

[PACOX]

I just read the NYT article on Tara Reade. That piece is nasty. She could or could not be lying but it it single-handedly set backs the movement against sexual assault and hearing out victims. It seriously makes sexual assault allegations that were championed by the liberals was nothing more but political battle tactics rather than actually caring about erasing a toxic cultural norm.

We saw it when people were told to look the other way for Bloomberg. This is not the first time I've seen liberals weaponize legit social issues and then leave actual advocates hanging, probably not the last. It's damaging to actual advocacy in the US.

You can't just dismiss allegations because you don't like someones political views, that's what You want Republicans do And I'm not saying to just accept allegations at face value either but there's a mile between listening and straight up calling someone a liar because their story isn't convenient to you LA LA land narrative.

Let's be honest. Do people forget the way Biden treated Anita Hill. He is not a Saint.

[Endus]

That said, I don't particularly find her claims credible right now due to the fact that she waited over 2 decades with them. Sadly even if we do dismiss the Tara Reade accusation there are still other accusers - and many video clips of Biden touching women and underage and making them feel uncomfortable with it.

There's a lot to find iffy about it. Particularly that she claims it happened in the spring, and that she was essentially fired over it, but records show she kept working there till August. And that she claimed she filed a complaint with Senate officials, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence of any such complaint ever being made.

That's what makes me question Reade; not her claims against Biden specifically, but that she claims other things that should be verifiable, but where there should be records, there's just a void. There's people she claims she talked to about it who deny ever having such a conversation. When you make verifiable claims which fail verification checks, that raises red flags.

It's not enough all on its own, because memory can be a fickle thing. IIRC, Ford had some inconsistencies too, explainable by just such factors (though her inconsistencies weren't as verifiable as this; just confusion on specific dates and such IIRC).

I just read the NYT article on Tara Reade. That piece is nasty. She could or could not be lying but it it single-handedly set backs the movement against sexual assault and hearing out victims. It seriously makes sexual assault allegations that were championed by the liberals was nothing more but political battle tactics rather than actually caring about erasing a toxic cultural norm.

I take the stance with Reade that I take with any such issue.

Investigate the crap out of it. Once a claim like this gets made in public, the State should have the capacity to step in and create an investigation into those events.

If they can prove Biden did it, fuck that guy forever. Throw him in the blackest, deepest pits of social opprobrium (presuming we're outside legal consequences, or else that). We can pull up the also-rans in the primary and adjust; the general hasn't even started yet.
If they can't prove anything either way, all sides need to drop this. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, we can't tell, go vote.
If they can show that Reade has made serious and deliberately false statements in her description of events, prosecute her to the fullest for making a false claim. Because we also need to prosecute that end of things. And note that I'm drawing a very clear distinction here between this and the middle ground; failing to make her case should not be considered grounds for persecution (not a typo). This shouldn't act as a deterrent to anyone but people who're going to deliberately lie to make shit up.

Same goes for anyone, regardless of party affiliation.

[Machismo]

I just read the NYT article on Tara Reade. That piece is nasty. She could or could not be lying but it it single-handedly set backs the movement against sexual assault and hearing out victims. It seriously makes sexual assault allegations that were championed by the liberals was nothing more but political battle tactics rather than actually caring about erasing a toxic cultural norm.

We saw it when people were told to look the other way for Bloomberg. This is not the first time I've seen liberals weaponize legit social issues and then leave actual advocates hanging, probably not the last. It's damaging to actual advocacy in the US.

You can't just dismiss allegations because you don't like someones political views, that's what You want Republicans do And I'm not saying to just accept allegations at face value either but there's a mile between listening and straight up calling someone a liar because their story isn't convenient to you LA LA land narrative.

Let's be honest. Do people forget the way Biden treated Anita Hill. He is not a Saint.

I read it, and most of it was benign. The lead into Trump was shitty, and they shouldn't have done it.

I remember when she first made accusations, from a blog of hers. I thought they just popped up, again... but these allegations are different than before.

[Drutt]

I take the stance with Reade that I take with any such issue.

Investigate the crap out of it.

That's where I am. In general, I refuse to cast a vote for someone who has an uninvestigated sexual assault accusation hanging over them. Which puts me in a wonderful position, because I flat out refuse to vote for Trump and I don't feel like I can hold my nose and vote for Biden with that accusation hanging over him uninvestigated.

Third party or write-in it is, I guess. :/

[breadisfunny]

Ok. Let's get down to brass tacks.

I think that Biden is senile, dishonest, corrupt, and just plain evil. If he gets elected he will govern a lot more conservative than he is campaigning, just like Obama did. And if he gets elected, after he finishes doing everything possible to dismantle every semblance of liberalism in the US, his failures will be blamed solely on liberals leading to a republican renaissance following him. Just like the republican renaissance that started even while Obama was still President.

To me, it would be a disaster if Biden were elected President. Even worse than Trump. A vote for a third party might be a vote for Trump, but a vote for Biden is a vote for BIDEN

And oh yeah, Biden IS actively hostile to progressives. He DID promise to veto M4A should it pass congress. How much more actively hostile do you want?

1. most all politicians are corrupt in some fashion. you have to be to be one.
2. even i don't think biden is evil. that's just being melodramatic.

- - - Updated - - -

Voting for President Trump. Hopefully Oregon does too.

oregon is a democrat stronghold so highly unlikely.

[Felya]

"Biden did less rape than Trump. Vote Biden!"

Now that is a good tagline, its gonna work out great, i'm sure.

How about... Trump won, these accusations don’t mater. It’s “youthful indiscretion”... the price you pay for men to not be afraid to hire attractive women, out of fear of them suing. Biden not being harmed by these accusations, is far right winning in action.

- - - Updated - - -

That's where I am. In general, I refuse to cast a vote for someone who has an uninvestigated sexual assault accusation hanging over them. Which puts me in a wonderful position, because I flat out refuse to vote for Trump and I don't feel like I can hold my nose and vote for Biden with that accusation hanging over him uninvestigated.

Third party or write-in it is, I guess. :/

Which means that the candidate that has to care about these accusations the least, due to their constituents not giving a shit, will prevail.