Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Machiavellian said:
Rab said:

If you know these guys at all they do build a case with evidence, often looking at the whole picture to put things in perspective, they are very good at what they do, your criticisms of them come across as gaslighting, if I want to post something from them I will, the post wasn't directed at you as you are not referred to in anyway   

No, I do not know these guys and I saw no evidence in that opinion piece. What I saw is what ever opinion piece does is be one sided.  Case in point they say collusion from Biden because one article got 74 witnesses.  They never back this claim up only suggesting that its hard to do so Biden camp had to be involved.  In my mind it is gaslighting.  If you are going to out other news agency then your story has to be devoid of opinions you cannot backup with evidence.  

You can post whatever you want, never stated that you cannot, but do not believe everyone is going to just swallow opinion piece gunk like this just because you believe they are factual.  If anything they are just the other side of opinion pieces.  Why post it anyway if you did not believe some people would actually watch it and have an opinion on it.  

Well then you should get to know them before gaslighting them, because I don't believe your analysis of them is right, they have both a left leaning and a right leaning commentator (both sides of the coin) on the program for balance, they always back up what they think with the most up to date information, and revisit their view if new information comes to light, they do look at the big picture and bring on both Dems and Reps to talk, it is quite a unique program in this era of  partisan politics and media

You made the comment directed at me that I should have done something else instead post the video of a Hill discussion, an attempt to gaslight me   

 

Last edited by Rab - on 19 May 2020

Around the Network
Rab said:
Machiavellian said:

No, I do not know these guys and I saw no evidence in that opinion piece. What I saw is what ever opinion piece does is be one sided.  Case in point they say collusion from Biden because one article got 74 witnesses.  They never back this claim up only suggesting that its hard to do so Biden camp had to be involved.  In my mind it is gaslighting.  If you are going to out other news agency then your story has to be devoid of opinions you cannot backup with evidence.  

You can post whatever you want, never stated that you cannot, but do not believe everyone is going to just swallow opinion piece gunk like this just because you believe they are factual.  If anything they are just the other side of opinion pieces.  Why post it anyway if you did not believe some people would actually watch it and have an opinion on it.  

Well then you should get to know them before gaslighting them, because I don't believe your analysis of them is right, they have both a left leaning and a right leaning commentator (both sides of the coin) on the program for balance, they always back up what they think with the most up to date information, and revisit their view if new information comes to light, they do look at the big picture and bring on both Dems and Reps to talk, it is quite a unique program in this era of  partisan politics and media

You made the comment directed at me that I should have done something else instead post the video of a Hill discussion, an attempt to gaslight me   

 

Na, if this video is anything to go by then definitely no.  There are enough opinion pieces out on the net, I do not need another one trying to convince me to believe what they are selling, instead, I will do what I always do and just read multiple articles on any subject and form my own opinion.  You will find out I do not care about political leanings and just want the information without the slant.  Since most times this is hard to achieve, I prefer to limit it as much as possible.

You let me know when they backup their claims that Biden colluded with the other news agency for those articles then I will more than happy to take back what I stated, Until then its just more political junk.

Yes, my last comment is that in order to form your own opinion you actually need to read the articles they are talking about instead of just listening to talking heads and just believing what they say.



Machiavellian said:
Rab said:

Well then you should get to know them before gaslighting them, because I don't believe your analysis of them is right, they have both a left leaning and a right leaning commentator (both sides of the coin) on the program for balance, they always back up what they think with the most up to date information, and revisit their view if new information comes to light, they do look at the big picture and bring on both Dems and Reps to talk, it is quite a unique program in this era of  partisan politics and media

You made the comment directed at me that I should have done something else instead post the video of a Hill discussion, an attempt to gaslight me   

 

Na, if this video is anything to go by then definitely no.  There are enough opinion pieces out on the net, I do not need another one trying to convince me to believe what they are selling, instead, I will do what I always do and just read multiple articles on any subject and form my own opinion.  You will find out I do not care about political leanings and just want the information without the slant.  Since most times this is hard to achieve, I prefer to limit it as much as possible.

You let me know when they backup their claims that Biden colluded with the other news agency for those articles then I will more than happy to take back what I stated, Until then its just more political junk.

Yes, my last comment is that in order to form your own opinion you actually need to read the articles they are talking about instead of just listening to talking heads and just believing what they say.

Biden has been getting softballs from the Est. Media and Dems since this all started, I appreciate The Hill probing and asking questions, few other news agencies have done much at all in vetting Biden, it has to be done so we don't end up with another lame duck president including the baggage of rape, he and the establishment should clear the air, but based off their track record they won't, they will misinform, misdirect and cover up resulting in people from the left moving further away from and weakening the Dems.. I can only imagine the uproar from the media and the Dems if this was Bernie :/        

Last edited by Rab - on 19 May 2020

Machiavellian said:
coolbeans said:

What's hilarious is Biden and fellow cronies didn't seem to mind this rhetoric when Kavanaugh went through his show trial.  And while I do empathize with what you've previously brought up about gathering evidence from all possible avenues, why hasn't Biden gone by his own previously-held standards when it comes to this?  Even if this claim of forced finger-****ing turns out to be false and there's only enough to suggest he was just his creepy-as-hell hands-y self with Reade, the rational approach in clearing one's name would be to step down from your national platform until a thorough investigation was completed.  That's practically a 1:1 interpretation of his argument when a 'political rival' (so to speak) faced similar allegations.

I absolutely do not care what Biden or anyone else believed during Kavanaugh trial since my stance was the same on that situation as well.  I am not looking at the situation based on political affiliation.  You do not gather any evidence until you are going to court.  What good is gathering all evidence when there is nothing to present to.  Since Biden is the defendant in this situation, its up to Reade to go to court to get everything out.

My problem with this whole thing is that in the beginning, Reade did not mention nothing about Rape nor did the neighbor she told.  There story was totally different and then only months later did it change.  A consistent story is always relevant in cases like this because it gives the appearance that you either do not remember what happen or you are making things up.  Either way, I am done with Reade allegations until she get serious and take it to court.  As I stated before, its a waste of time doing this out of court because we cannot see witnesses cross examined or the evidence all in one place for review.  Right now there isn't anything that collaborate Reade rape allegations.

But "political affiliation" isn't the real baseline I'm looking at either, although it's part of equation here.  The principle comes back to something much simpler: reciprocity.  If Joe Biden is willing to take a moral stance in regards to #BelieveWomen against someone else, I don't see why it's wrong applying those same standards when accusations come his way.  And since this is in the venue of public opinion & winning a person's vote--versus a criminal court case, I'm not really sure how you expect this to proceed.

I'm really lost by what you mean here.  Do cold case files and investigative journalism come to mind?  There's never been this weird bubble you seem to be implying whereby "evidence" of suspected wrongdoing only starts when you go to court.  And that's especially tougher given the digital revolution we're in today.  You also seem to have an odd second sentence too.  The evidence gathered is literally being presented to the public given that Biden is trying to secure the highest public office in the US.  Granted, there are dangers TO this approach; but given the statue of limitations Wash DC seems to have regarding sexual assault her options are limited.

And that's fine too.  I--personally--have no quarrels sussing out all available evidence and testing their weight.  It's just a shame so much has been tied to smearing her character about liked tweets & blog posts instead.  As for the rape inconsistency there's actually a pretty easy 'cultural alibi' I can sympathize with women in previous decades: dealing with a stacked deck.  Whether it's in respect to the rigorous sifting through your personal life or the near-certainty that this may poison future employment prospects on Capitol Hill, arguing down to a lesser charge of 'sexual misconduct' with the hopes of him avoiding you is an understandable move.



May 2020 Articles:

https://www.darkstation.com/reviews/doug-hates-his-job-review (Doug Hates His Job Review - 1/5 Stars)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/443538/daymare-1998-xone/ (Daymare: 1998 Review - 4/10)

coolbeans said:
Machiavellian said:

I absolutely do not care what Biden or anyone else believed during Kavanaugh trial since my stance was the same on that situation as well.  I am not looking at the situation based on political affiliation.  You do not gather any evidence until you are going to court.  What good is gathering all evidence when there is nothing to present to.  Since Biden is the defendant in this situation, its up to Reade to go to court to get everything out.

My problem with this whole thing is that in the beginning, Reade did not mention nothing about Rape nor did the neighbor she told.  There story was totally different and then only months later did it change.  A consistent story is always relevant in cases like this because it gives the appearance that you either do not remember what happen or you are making things up.  Either way, I am done with Reade allegations until she get serious and take it to court.  As I stated before, its a waste of time doing this out of court because we cannot see witnesses cross examined or the evidence all in one place for review.  Right now there isn't anything that collaborate Reade rape allegations.

But "political affiliation" isn't the real baseline I'm looking at either, although it's part of equation here.  The principle comes back to something much simpler: reciprocity.  If Joe Biden is willing to take a moral stance in regards to #BelieveWomen against someone else, I don't see why it's wrong applying those same standards when accusations come his way.  And since this is in the venue of public opinion & winning a person's vote--versus a criminal court case, I'm not really sure how you expect this to proceed.

I'm really lost by what you mean here.  Do cold case files and investigative journalism come to mind?  There's never been this weird bubble you seem to be implying whereby "evidence" of suspected wrongdoing only starts when you go to court.  And that's especially tougher given the digital revolution we're in today.  You also seem to have an odd second sentence too.  The evidence gathered is literally being presented to the public given that Biden is trying to secure the highest public office in the US.  Granted, there are dangers TO this approach; but given the statue of limitations Wash DC seems to have regarding sexual assault her options are limited.

And that's fine too.  I--personally--have no quarrels sussing out all available evidence and testing their weight.  It's just a shame so much has been tied to smearing her character about liked tweets & blog posts instead.  As for the rape inconsistency there's actually a pretty easy 'cultural alibi' I can sympathize with women in previous decades: dealing with a stacked deck.  Whether it's in respect to the rigorous sifting through your personal life or the near-certainty that this may poison future employment prospects on Capitol Hill, arguing down to a lesser charge of 'sexual misconduct' with the hopes of him avoiding you is an understandable move.

I have no problem with Biden getting hammered for his position since I really do not care about Biden.  I am looking at the situation on how I view a case of this sort if I was a juror.  I have read multiple articles on the evidence and there really isn't anything there on Reade side that actually point to rape or even assault. Even by her own account she said she only made an official complaint that Biden made her uncomfortable.  Nothing on assault  so how are we to jump from being uncomfortable to sexual assault is really tough.  In the beginning when people where interviewed their story was totally different then next they change it to the current story.  This happen from the neighbor and her brother.  Its not that her story changed but also people who collaborated her story later also changed.  Also her praising Biden not to long ago just seemed odd since she has such detailed description of the incident.  I do not understand how you go from praising someone to saying they rape you.

I am saying the defendant doesn't need to gather any evidence if they are not going to court.  What exactly can the defendant do.  Someone says you rape them, how do you defend that especially in a case like this where there is no physical evidence to be obtained.

To your last paragraph, I totally agree that it was much tougher to bring out charges against someone in power like a Boss compared to now.  This is why I have said when such incidents happen today, sitting on it and waiting is the problem. 



Around the Network
Rab said:
Machiavellian said:

Na, if this video is anything to go by then definitely no.  There are enough opinion pieces out on the net, I do not need another one trying to convince me to believe what they are selling, instead, I will do what I always do and just read multiple articles on any subject and form my own opinion.  You will find out I do not care about political leanings and just want the information without the slant.  Since most times this is hard to achieve, I prefer to limit it as much as possible.

You let me know when they backup their claims that Biden colluded with the other news agency for those articles then I will more than happy to take back what I stated, Until then its just more political junk.

Yes, my last comment is that in order to form your own opinion you actually need to read the articles they are talking about instead of just listening to talking heads and just believing what they say.

Biden has been getting softballs from the Est. Media and Dems since this all started, I appreciate The Hill probing and asking questions, few other news agencies have done much at all in vetting Biden, it has to be done so we don't end up with another lame duck president including the baggage of rape, he and the establishment should clear the air, but based off their track record they won't, they will misinform, misdirect and cover up resulting in people from the left moving further away from and weakening the Dems.. I can only imagine the uproar from the media and the Dems if this was Bernie :/        

Let me ask you this question, how much digging did the hill do on Trump.  How many articles and shows did they do concerning the multiple sexual allegations against him.  I could not find any but since you watch their show, where would you find such info.  It would be interesting to see this balance you are talking about.



Vote shaming is immature and irrational and anyone who does it or encourages that behavior is not acting in good faith and is simply stirring the pot and spreading toxicity. Pushing potential voters away by being insufferable and not inclusive is a recipe for disaster and is just plain wrong. If you have the time and privilege to vote shame someone, oppositely you have the time and privilege to actually effect change by pushing for better policies your candidate could adopt or you could phone bank or canvass.

If you disagree with someone's choice in a candidate you could simply state your side and why you decided to vote for you candidate and give positive examples to try and sway others to join you in your voting preference. Also you could give the other side things they could adopt to make it so you'll vote for them. For example: I've stated numerous times that I'd vote for Biden, despite everything else, if he supported M4A and bolder climate action because those things would have a direct and greatly positive impact on my community and for poor people and POC across the nation.

330 million people live in the U.S. and only 3.4% of them voted for Biden (about 11 mil.) I'd say that's hardly the will of the people. Especially when you factor in everything else like active voter suppression and the manufacturing of consent by the mainstream media and the obvious hurdle of the rich and powerful wanting to stay rich and powerful so they don't care at all whether disadvantaged people have their voices heard or die. The deck is very much stacked against the will of the people.



 

tsogud said:

330 million people live in the U.S. and only 3.4% of them voted for Biden (about 11 mil.) I'd say that's hardly the will of the people. Especially when you factor in everything else like active voter suppression and the manufacturing of consent by the mainstream media and the obvious hurdle of the rich and powerful wanting to stay rich and powerful so they don't care at all whether disadvantaged people have their voices heard or die. The deck is very much stacked against the will of the people.

This is especially funny considering the entire strategy of the Bernie campaign was winning a plurality of votes with a split field.

And I might add, a ridiculous, undemocratic argument.

Last edited by Moren - on 19 May 2020

Machiavellian said:
Rab said:

Biden has been getting softballs from the Est. Media and Dems since this all started, I appreciate The Hill probing and asking questions, few other news agencies have done much at all in vetting Biden, it has to be done so we don't end up with another lame duck president including the baggage of rape, he and the establishment should clear the air, but based off their track record they won't, they will misinform, misdirect and cover up resulting in people from the left moving further away from and weakening the Dems.. I can only imagine the uproar from the media and the Dems if this was Bernie :/        

Let me ask you this question, how much digging did the hill do on Trump.  How many articles and shows did they do concerning the multiple sexual allegations against him.  I could not find any but since you watch their show, where would you find such info.  It would be interesting to see this balance you are talking about.

As this thread is about the Dems and partly Biden's rape allegation we shouldn't get distracted, but just quickly on The Hill as you obviously don't watch them consistently, they regularly call out Trump particularly the right leaning commentator, but let's face it the Est. Media already vet Trump excessively, obsessively, and extensively, but not so good at vetting Biden's issues even with rape allegations pending, which only undermines the trust the left of the party has in the Dems and Est Media     



Moren said:
tsogud said:

330 million people live in the U.S. and only 3.4% of them voted for Biden (about 11 mil.) I'd say that's hardly the will of the people. Especially when you factor in everything else like active voter suppression and the manufacturing of consent by the mainstream media and the obvious hurdle of the rich and powerful wanting to stay rich and powerful so they don't care at all whether disadvantaged people have their voices heard or die. The deck is very much stacked against the will of the people.

This is especially funny considering the entire strategy of the Bernie campaign was winning a plurality of votes with a split field.

And I might add, a ridiculous, undemocratic argument.

It's not an argument in the slightest. I'm literally just stating a fact. If you choose to not see the influence the rich and powerful have over everyday people's lives that's on you and I can't help with that.

I also didn't mention Sanders whatsoever but you keep bringing him up to flame me and start an argument. You're actively spreading toxicity with your negative posts and are gaslighting me in the process.

What's LITERALLY undemocratic is vote shaming people which was the main part of my post which you conveniently left out.

Last edited by tsogud - on 20 May 2020