Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Machismo]

Any guesses on who this is? Smells like Lil Jetti.

Anyway, my position on why Biden is a clear choice is clear. You "new posters" ought to read up on a thread before responding to it.

It's the Brexit Burner.

[cubby]

If this allegation becomes credible, the move is for Biden to drop out, even if it somewhat impacts our chances of beating Trump. Would much, much rather try and fail with someone like Sanders (who as far as I'm aware is the only person capable of running if something happens to Biden) than choose to vote for a rapist. You don't get back to your principles by throwing them further away, you just get further and further away from them and lose the ability to tell right from wrong.

As it stands, it's a somewhat credible story with reasonable doubt. If the story ends where it's at, anyone for whom this is the determining factor will have to decide whether the weight of evidence is heavier against Biden or Trump (hint: Trump is a fucking monster and doesn't bother to hide it). If it changes, if the story becomes worse and it's obvious that it's true, there are two problems: 1) moral - choosing to vote for someone you know is a rapist is deeply shitty even if the other choice is a worse rapist 2) practical - if it truly becomes credible then that choice will dampen voter turnout to some degree, whether it's by enough or not is an open question. If it becomes credible, the right thing to do from both directions is to change up the candidate. If nothing else putting your money where your mouth is shows people who care about things like principles that they actually matter to you, makes it easier to believe that you actually want to do right by them.

I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree with your conclusion. All of that is bolstered by the idea that with the amount of lies the Trumpters are throwing at this, how will we ever know if it's actually credible?

And the overall problem is that the Trumpkins are attempting to make us care about an issue they do not. Setting aside the morality of the specific issue, in your opinion, at what point do we stop playing with different rule books?

[Kallisto]

Any guesses on who this is? Smells like Lil Jetti.

Anyway, my position on why Biden is a clear choice is clear. You "new posters" ought to read up on a thread before responding to it.

It's the guy who floods Brexit and anything Corbyn related with attacks on people who are not ultra far left. Copies his posts for when they are inevitably deleted and then pastes them in a new account. He's had well over 1000 bans by now and yet somehow the mods can't find a way to keep him from making new accounts.

The only thought I have about the guy is that he's either being paid or his life is so bad that even without covid 19 issues he is unable to leave the house.

[Zaktar]

I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree with your conclusion. All of that is bolstered by the idea that with the amount of lies the Trumpters are throwing at this, how will we ever know if it's actually credible?

And the overall problem is that the Trumpkins are attempting to make us care about an issue they do not. Setting aside the morality of the specific issue, in your opinion, at what point do we stop playing with different rule books?

Their lies don't sway me as far as I'm aware - just for an example her mother's statement on CNN lends some credibility to the idea that something happened, as does his pattern of behavior and some of the other allegations against him, but neither of those is conclusive. The mother could have been talking about anything ("her problems" could mean that she was treated unfairly, could mean almost anything), he could be someone who leans creepy but is harmless.

So I think the way as an individual to navigate this is to analyze the evidence to the best of your ability and make your own call on what you believe (for me it's: I don't know what happened, and I think that's unlikely to change). If the evidence changes, and it's worth believing, then your views necessarily have to change.

For me the worst case scenario is that late in the game some kind of rock solid evidence comes forth (something like a recording of an admission or even the act), and we're stuck with a choice between Biden and Trump. That's the point at which, for me, to answer your question, the rulebook changes and I have to vote for Biden. But if we had solid evidence right now? Surely the right thing would be to ask the man to drop out because that's not who we are. Otherwise it is pretty hard to take seriously any charges of hypocrisy or moral weakness against the other team. Don't mean to paint myself as some kind of paragon of virtue - I'm not. In many ways I can be a shitty person, but rape is beyond the pale.

Again though, the good news is we're unlikely to be faced with this choice. The more likely choice is that we choose between a man with some awkward history and one fuzzy allegation, or a man with an outwardly disgusting history and numerous solidly credible allegations, which should be easy to make, if that's someone's central issue.

[eschatological]

As someone who has worked on trials of sexual assault, the Larry King video of the mother (who Reade claims is her mother) calling into the show and discussing her daughter working for a Senator who sexually harassed her is pretty damning.

If it's in any way proven to be Reade's mother (some of the details line up, like where the caller was calling from, the timeline of when Reade left Biden's office in comparison to the call, etc), then Biden should not be the nominee. We basically torpedoed John Edwards for having an affair during a Democratic primary, this should be the same.

Please keep in mind: I did not think there was much credibility to this story before the Larry King video. I'm also not sure about the veracity of the video, though Reade did claim her mother called the show in her original interview, so she'd have to be doing some serious fakery where she found a clip from a show that matched her situation close enough before she went public, and that would be an intensely cynical and conspiratorial thing to believe. I'm also not sure Bernie should ipso facto be the new nominee, and that we should probably go to a brokered convention.

[beanman12345]

I agree there is credibility to this, and if proven he should let someone else be the nominee, and I'm actually inclined to believe her, but how the hell has this gone completely unnoticed by both republican and democrat oppo for this long?

[eschatological]

I agree there is credibility to this, and if proven he should let someone else be the nominee, and I'm actually inclined to believe her, but how the hell has this gone completely unnoticed by both republican and democrat oppo for this long?

Well, she claims she didn't take it public (but her allegations are backstopped by her telling people like her mother and various friends, some of which has been confirmed, much like Blasey-Ford) before.

Which I thought strange, seeing as Biden was running as VICE PRESIDENT in 2008, and that apparently wasn't high enough an office for her to take him down. In fact, it took credibility away from her seeing as how strongly pro-Bernie she was, and how strongly pro-Russia she was, that she only made public the allegations.....in March of 2020, after Bernie had lost any chance of the nomination. To me, if you want Bernie to win and you think Biden is a huge scum bag, you make the allegations before the primaries, when Biden is the presumed frontrunner. When Kamala is attacking him in one of the pre-primary debates, that's when you make these allegations. Releasing them now reeks of bitterness that her candidate lost, and now she just wants to throw bombs at the presumptive nominee. BTW, both can be true: the allegations can be true, but she didn't care enough about them except when her candidate lost and Biden was the only one left.

Again, the Larry King thing kind of changes all that. It restores some credibility to her that the initial allegations seriously lacked.

[PACOX]

I agree there is credibility to this, and if proven he should let someone else be the nominee, and I'm actually inclined to believe her, but how the hell has this gone completely unnoticed by both republican and democrat oppo for this long?

How do you put up another candidate after spending months telling people to rally behind Biden. Telling Sanders voters to fuck off, and not looking like the worst thing the DNC can do - appoint a candidate via super delegates.

I think they'd be better at trying to paint Biden as a changed man than replacing him.

Everyone knew his past would hunt him though.

[beanman12345]

Well, she claims she didn't take it public (but her allegations are backstopped by her telling people like her mother and various friends, some of which has been confirmed, much like Blasey-Ford) before.

Which I thought strange, seeing as Biden was running as VICE PRESIDENT in 2008, and that apparently wasn't high enough an office for her to take him down. In fact, it took credibility away from her seeing as how strongly pro-Bernie she was, and how strongly pro-Russia she was, that she only made public the allegations.....in March of 2020, after Bernie had lost any chance of the nomination. To me, if you want Bernie to win and you think Biden is a huge scum bag, you make the allegations before the primaries, when Biden is the presumed frontrunner. When Kamala is attacking him in one of the pre-primary debates, that's when you make these allegations. Releasing them now reeks of bitterness that her candidate lost, and now she just wants to throw bombs at the presumptive nominee. BTW, both can be true: the allegations can be true, but she didn't care enough about them except when her candidate lost and Biden was the only one left.

Again, the Larry King thing kind of changes all that. It restores some credibility to her that the initial allegations seriously lacked.

Wasn't she one of the ones who originally came out with the innappropriate touching about biden last year? Nothing in the Larry King call in alludes to anything further than that. Now it's full on sexual assault, as I said, oppo would have picked this up. I'm inclined to believe her, but...

[PACOX]

Well, she claims she didn't take it public (but her allegations are backstopped by her telling people like her mother and various friends, some of which has been confirmed, much like Blasey-Ford) before.

Which I thought strange, seeing as Biden was running as VICE PRESIDENT in 2008, and that apparently wasn't high enough an office for her to take him down. In fact, it took credibility away from her seeing as how strongly pro-Bernie she was, and how strongly pro-Russia she was, that she only made public the allegations.....in March of 2020, after Bernie had lost any chance of the nomination. To me, if you want Bernie to win and you think Biden is a huge scum bag, you make the allegations before the primaries, when Biden is the presumed frontrunner. When Kamala is attacking him in one of the pre-primary debates, that's when you make these allegations. Releasing them now reeks of bitterness that her candidate lost, and now she just wants to throw bombs at the presumptive nominee. BTW, both can be true: the allegations can be true, but she didn't care enough about them except when her candidate lost and Biden was the only one left.

Again, the Larry King thing kind of changes all that. It restores some credibility to her that the initial allegations seriously lacked.

Just from the PoV of an alleged victim also in terms of #MeToo, it could have simply been that she didn't feel she didn't have a platform. Many people hold on to their stories for a lot of reasons. A lot old stories did not come out or weren't listened to until a few years ago.

But it is not like Biden was not viewed as creepy before, it was just 'acceptable'. Allegations were met with 'Biden is handsy' rather than action.

[Draco-Onis]

Well, given I've actually in no uncertain terms said Trump should at least be investigated

We're talking about you defending Kavanaugh.

[Felya]

I agree there is credibility to this, and if proven he should let someone else be the nominee, and I'm actually inclined to believe her, but how the hell has this gone completely unnoticed by both republican and democrat oppo for this long?

Why did she praise Biden from then, until as little as a year ago? Her issue is the same as that of the 3 Trump accusers of last year, it has a lot of issues. It’s the same reason those 3 are not being covered, but there is no Fox to push it. MSM doesn’t see the ratings boost with Trump, that they used to...

- - - Updated - - -

How do you put up another candidate after spending months telling people to rally behind Biden. Telling Sanders voters to fuck off, and not looking like the worst thing the DNC can do - appoint a candidate via super delegates.

I think they'd be better at trying to paint Biden as a changed man than replacing him.

Everyone knew his past would hunt him though.

There would be a run off, likely with a new candidate, that is polling at around 70% approval... way beyond Bernie... the new governator... Cuomo...

[TexasRules]

He is stupid, but that's beside the point.

Because the majority of these already were brought up during the 2016 campaign, including things like the Stormy Daniels affair. Plus the Access Hollywood tape of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women. Plus the Howard Stern segment where Trump bragged about peeping on unclothed, underage girls at teenage beauty pageants.

And the consensus for Republican voters seems to have been that none of that matters to them in the slightest. So bringing it up again won't matter either. This is a bullet that's already been spent. Democratic voters seem to give more of a shit about sexual assault etc., so it's a bigger risk for Biden than Trump.

Democrat voters do not give a shit about sexual assault, they are proving now it was all partisan politics. Just ask Alyssa Milano. Thank you for recognizing what the people here do not, you can talk all you want about the past as an equivalency to help your cause , but Trump has already gone past these allegation, Joe Biden has not.

[Felya]

Democrat voters do not give a shit about sexual assault, they are proving now it was all partisan politics. Just ask Alyssa Milano. Thank you for recognizing what the people here do not, you can talk all you want about the past as an equivalency to help your cause , but Trump has already gone past these allegation, Joe Biden has not.

Trump has had 3 new accusers within the year... how exactly did he move past them? I don’t think you even know them...

[Draco-Onis]

Democrat voters do not give a shit about sexual assault, they are proving now it was all partisan politics. Just ask Alyssa Milano. Thank you for recognizing what the people here do not, you can talk all you want about the past as an equivalency to help your cause , but Trump has already gone past these allegation, Joe Biden has not.

How do you get past sexually assaulting people exactly? just because you did doesn't mean anything my stance is the same investigate and make them face the consequences. Donald Trump has had no investigations or clearing of his name on any of the charges he just attacked the accusers heck he is still fighting them in court at the moment.

[Felya]

How do you get past sexually assaulting people exactly? just because you did doesn't mean anything my stance is the same investigate and make them face the consequences. Donald Trump has had no investigations or clearing of his name on any of the charges he just attacked the accusers heck he is still fighting them in court at the moment.

We are up to 47 women accusing Trump. The list grows almost every year... there are still the inquirer documents to come. The women they paid off to keep quiet...

Edit: Including one, where Trump would hide behind drapes at his golf resource, to grope women walking bye.

[TexasRules]

If this allegation becomes credible, the move is for Biden to drop out, even if it somewhat impacts our chances of beating Trump. Would much, much rather try and fail with someone like Sanders (who as far as I'm aware is the only person capable of running if something happens to Biden) than choose to vote for a rapist. You don't get back to your principles by throwing them further away, you just get further and further away from them and lose the ability to tell right from wrong.

As it stands, it's a somewhat credible story with reasonable doubt. If the story ends where it's at, anyone for whom this is the determining factor will have to decide whether the weight of evidence is heavier against Biden or Trump (hint: Trump is a fucking monster and doesn't bother to hide it). If it changes, if the story becomes worse and it's obvious that it's true, there are two problems: 1) moral - choosing to vote for someone you know is a rapist is deeply shitty even if the other choice is a worse rapist 2) practical - if it truly becomes credible then that choice will dampen voter turnout to some degree, whether it's by enough or not is an open question. If it becomes credible, the right thing to do from both directions is to change up the candidate. If nothing else putting your money where your mouth is shows people who care about things like principles that they actually matter to you, makes it easier to believe that you actually want to do right by them.

You are trying to reach a person who admits he does not care. Biden could have killed someone and cubby would still say have to beat Trump no matter what. I bet with his lengthy post history you could find him rambling on and on about morals and about believing Ford over Kavanaugh. He no longer cares, he has decided to empty his morality bank all to defeat Trump at any cost. There's no point in even trying, he has become a fanatic of the cult of hating Trump. I just wonder how it will affect him for the next 4 years. Welcome to democratic party 2020 where hypocrisy attains new heights all in the name of derangement.

[Draco-Onis]

We are up to 47 women accusing Trump. The list grows almost every year... there are still the inquirer documents to come. The women they paid off to keep quiet...

Edit: Including one, where Trump would hide behind drapes at his golf resource, to grope women walking bye.

Let's also not forget Trump was bosom buddies with Jeffrey Epstein being a frequent flier of the lolita express.

[Edge-]

Democrat voters do not give a shit about sexual assault, they are proving now it was all partisan politics.

I'm talking about voters. Voters haven't put this to the test yet with Democrats, they have with Trump. And Democrats have cleaned their house when necessary, Al Franken was forced out over some pretty tame photo's.

Just ask Alyssa Milano.

Y'all need to make up your minds whether we listen/pay attention to celebrities or ignore them. Personally, I don't care what Milano says, I don't look to her for leadership or advice.

But again, to bring this back, I'm talking about the voters.

[Santti]

It's the guy who floods Brexit and anything Corbyn related with attacks on people who are not ultra far left. Copies his posts for when they are inevitably deleted and then pastes them in a new account. He's had well over 1000 bans by now and yet somehow the mods can't find a way to keep him from making new accounts.

The only thought I have about the guy is that he's either being paid or his life is so bad that even without covid 19 issues he is unable to leave the house.

I doubt there is anything anyone can do. All IP bans can be circumvented easily enough.

But maybe if we stopped feeding and acknowledging his existence, he might get bored, and find something more constructive to do?

I recommend using the Adblock trick found in Skroe's signature. Really helpful. He's completely invisible to me. Well, if people didn't quote him, that is.