ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , joe biden , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 25th May 2020, 11:36 AM   #41
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,737
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
This is why accusers can't be immune to accusation. Liars can absolutely be sexually assaulted, but an established liar would need to present evidence (or have a single account of the incident) to overcome the history of lying.
This is a terrible idea. Even established truth-tellers have to present evidence for their accusations. And trying to establish someone as a liar is a terrible way to get to the truth of their accusations. Either their accusation itself is consistent and supported by evidence, or it isn't. No rapist should go free just because their accuser lied about other things. No rape accusation should be believed just because the accuser told the truth about other things.

The world you want us to live in is a horrible world, and we should do what we can to avoid living in it. Even if that means 4 more years of President Trump. Which it won't, because Reade's accusation fails on its own merits, regardless of her reputation for trustworthiness.

Last edited by theprestige; 25th May 2020 at 11:40 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 12:13 PM   #42
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,443
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is a terrible idea. Even established truth-tellers have to present evidence for their accusations. And trying to establish someone as a liar is a terrible way to get to the truth of their accusations. Either their accusation itself is consistent and supported by evidence, or it isn't. No rapist should go free just because their accuser lied about other things. No rape accusation should be believed just because the accuser told the truth about other things.

The world you want us to live in is a horrible world, and we should do what we can to avoid living in it. Even if that means 4 more years of President Trump. Which it won't, because Reade's accusation fails on its own merits, regardless of her reputation for trustworthiness.
Hoo boy. I can just imagine your reaction if someone so egregiously misrepresented your argument.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 12:55 PM   #43
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Soooo why not fact check that?

Biden never said any such thing.

Because it was Mumblesí characterization. Why would I need to fact check what Mumbles just told me? I did not say Biden said any such thing.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 01:01 PM   #44
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
This is why accusers can't be immune to accusation. Liars can absolutely be sexually assaulted, but an established liar would need to present evidence (or have a single account of the incident) to overcome the history of lying.

What an excellent idea, this evidence you speak of...maybe we should apply it across the board and skip the whole ďliar liarĒ routine?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 01:08 PM   #45
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,072
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
What an excellent idea, this evidence you speak of...maybe we should apply it across the board and skip the whole ďliar liarĒ routine?
The evidence needs to be presented first. So far all we have is the words of someone who has been proven to lie about many things and for many years.

What I mean by 'evidence' starts with a consistent account of the incident. None of this documented vacillation of "he did this" "actually he did this" "everything was fine". There isn't a single account to base the accusation on, there's several that contradict each other! She hasn't actually been able to *make* her accusation yet. What is there to believe?

Next she needs to face her own accusers. Biden has nothing to do with this.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 01:34 PM   #46
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 15,462
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
The evidence needs to be presented first. So far all we have is the words of someone who has been proven to lie about many things and for many years.

What I mean by 'evidence' starts with a consistent account of the incident. None of this documented vacillation of "he did this" "actually he did this" "everything was fine". There isn't a single account to base the accusation on, there's several that contradict each other! She hasn't actually been able to *make* her accusation yet. What is there to believe?

Next she needs to face her own accusers. Biden has nothing to do with this.
There is nothing Biden can do other than what he's done: deny it. If Reade had given a date, he may have been able to prove he was out of state that day...or at an all day event...or that he didn't go to the gym that day. But as it stands, he can't do a damn thing to prove his innocence. The only things we have to go on are their histories of known behavior and credibility despite what some here claim.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:04 PM   #47
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,117
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Because it was Mumblesí characterization. Why would I need to fact check what Mumbles just told me? I did not say Biden said any such thing.
Why factcheck something that makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology?

I dunno, maybe because it makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology and no one else mentioned any such thing in this thread?
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:11 PM   #48
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is nothing Biden can do other than what he's done: deny it. If Reade had given a date, he may have been able to prove he was out of state that day...or at an all day event...or that he didn't go to the gym that day. But as it stands, he can't do a damn thing to prove his innocence. The only things we have to go on are their histories of known behavior and credibility despite what some here claim.
She also hasn't given a date for the supposed campaign fundraiser that Biden allegedly wanted her to serve drinks at because he liked her legs. I find the stories about her credibility issues entertaining, but IMHO there are sufficient reasons to doubt her story(ies) without referencing other events. Including claiming to have been asked to serve drinks at a campaign fundraiser because Biden liked her legs when numerous former Biden employees have stated that he didn't ask junior staff members to do campaign work.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:13 PM   #49
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,072
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why factcheck something that makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology?

I dunno, maybe because it makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology and no one else mentioned any such thing in this thread?
What do you mean by "C-change"? Do you mean "sea-change" which refers to a massive shift in the surrounding environment, or something else?
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:15 PM   #50
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is nothing Biden can do other than what he's done: deny it. If Reade had given a date, he may have been able to prove he was out of state that day...or at an all day event...or that he didn't go to the gym that day. But as it stands, he can't do a damn thing to prove his innocence. The only things we have to go on are their histories of known behavior and credibility despite what some here claim.
If thatís the only thing we have, then we actually have nothing. Like we did before Readeís character assassination.

Nothiní from nothiní leaves nothiní. Ya gotta have sumthiní if you wanna be believed. -With apologies to Billy Preston.



Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
The evidence needs to be presented first. So far all we have is the words of someone
Correct. Thatís nothing. Words without evidence do not warrant action, unless that action is looking for evidence of the allegations.

A lie about an unrelated event many years removed is not evidence of anything other than that she lied about an unrelated event.

Quote:
who has been proven to lie about many things and for many years.
Irrelevant. Even if she had a near-perfect record, words without evidence are not actionable.



Quote:
What I mean by 'evidence' starts with a consistent account of the incident. None of this documented vacillation of "he did this" "actually he did this" "everything was fine". There isn't a single account to base the accusation on, there's several that contradict each other!
Ok, but women who are victims of sexual assault often behave in ways that are contradictory.
Quote:
She hasn't actually been able to *make* her accusation yet. What is there to believe?
Nothing.



Quote:
Next she needs to face her own accusers. Biden has nothing to do with this.
If women are going to face accusations, we shouldnít expect them to be willing to come forward. Especially when the accusations mostly have nothing to do with the allegations but with unrelated events.

This is why we usually call women who come forward, ďbrave.Ē Usually.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:20 PM   #51
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 15,462
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
She also hasn't given a date for the supposed campaign fundraiser that Biden allegedly wanted her to serve drinks at because he liked her legs. I find the stories about her credibility issues entertaining, but IMHO there are sufficient reasons to doubt her story(ies) without referencing other events. Including claiming to have been asked to serve drinks at a campaign fundraiser because Biden liked her legs when numerous former Biden employees have stated that he didn't ask junior staff members to do campaign work.
IIRC, they also said that he specifically never had female staffers serve at functions as he didn't want them to be seen as waiting on him.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:23 PM   #52
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why factcheck something that makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology?

I dunno, maybe because it makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology and no one else mentioned any such thing in this thread?

Why donít you take it up with Mumbles as he is the one who suggested it was a joke?

My point in that exchange was that apologists will write it off as a joke (as Mumbles did) or a gaffe (as others have).

Maybe you should berate the people who made the statement instead of the guy who responded to it.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:24 PM   #53
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,737
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Hoo boy. I can just imagine your reaction if someone so egregiously misrepresented your argument.
The argument was, "an established liar would need to present evidence to overcome the history of lying."

I disagree with the basic premise. Their history of lying is irrelevant. They don't have to overcome sod all about their history. They just have to overcome the burden of proof for that accusation.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:45 PM   #54
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 15,462
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The argument was, "an established liar would need to present evidence to overcome the history of lying."

I disagree with the basic premise. Their history of lying is irrelevant. They don't have to overcome sod all about their history. They just have to overcome the burden of proof for that accusation.
You'd better inform legal experts that credibility is irrelevant because they've got it all wrong.

Quote:
IN THE AMERICAN criminal justice system, the jury evaluates witness credibility. Whether the witness is an eyewitness to an alleged robbery, an expert on accounting procedures, or a complainant in a sexual abuse case," jurors must determine if they believe the witness. Jurors are expected to make credibility decisions based on their common sense, which is also termed intuition or experience. This concept of common sense is considered essential to the jury's task. When jurors exercise their common sense in evaluating a witness' testimony, a full and fair credibility determination is presumed to follow.
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.ed...ntext=caselrev
Quote:
At trial the judge must assess the credibility and reliability of witnesses. There is an important distinction between the veracity or truthfulness of a witness (credibility) and the ability of a witness to accurately relate his or her evidence (reliability). Both reliability and credibility are important aspects with respect to determining the truth and accuracy of any witnessís testimony. It is also important to note that a credible witness may not always be a reliable one and that a witness whose testimony is not credible on a particular point will also not be a reliable witness on the same point.

Turning to credibility, there are certain indicia of credibility that the trier of fact can use to determine a witnessís truthfulness. Examples include a criminal record containing offences of dishonesty*, some motive or interest in the outcome of the trial, bias, conduct, demeanour, collusion, or glaring inconsistencies in prior statements. Some or all of these factors may combine to lead a trier of fact to conclude that a witnessís evidence can be accepted as part of the fact finding process or not.
http://www.williampouloslaw.com/blog...urt-witnesses/

*I don't think it would be considered much of a stretch to say that an extensive history of lying and dishonesty would be considered irrelevant even if it did not result in a criminal record.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 03:57 PM   #55
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,297
It's strange that credibility has no role in theprestige's opinion...

Actually, I find it hard to believe and insincere.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 04:17 PM   #56
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 15,462
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
It's strange that credibility has no role in theprestige's opinion...

Actually, I find it hard to believe and insincere.
I find it odd to double (hell, triple and quadruple down) on it when I've presented several legal sources that discuss its great importance in cases such as this one. What one thinks should be relevant and what is relevant are two different things. Prestige is entitled to his opinion even if it flies in the face of reality.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 04:37 PM   #57
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,737
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I find it odd to double (hell, triple and quadruple down) on it when I've presented several legal sources that discuss its great importance in cases such as this one. What one thinks should be relevant and what is relevant are two different things. Prestige is entitled to his opinion even if it flies in the face of reality.
This isn't a court of law. You're not a trial lawyer. I'm not a jury. The claim is either supported by evidence or it isn't.

Credibility is important to me, just not in this particular context. Reade could be the most trustworthy person in the world, and I wouldn't convict Biden of raping her based on her say-so alone.

It's weird how much effort you've put in, over weeks, developing a point that's not even in contention, and doesn't actually make any difference here.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 04:51 PM   #58
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 15,462
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This isn't a court of law. You're not a trial lawyer. I'm not a jury. The claim is either supported by evidence or it isn't.

Credibility is important to me, just not in this particular context. Reade could be the most trustworthy person in the world, and I wouldn't convict Biden of raping her based on her say-so alone.

It's weird how much effort you've put in, over weeks, developing a point that's not even in contention, and doesn't actually make any difference here.
No stranger than the weeks of effort you've put into countering anyone who disagrees with you. But I see a huge, gaping rabbit hole and I ain't Alice.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 05:37 PM   #59
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You'd better inform legal experts that credibility is irrelevant because they've got it all wrong.


https://scholarlycommons.law.case.ed...ntext=caselrev

http://www.williampouloslaw.com/blog...urt-witnesses/

*I don't think it would be considered much of a stretch to say that an extensive history of lying and dishonesty would be considered irrelevant even if it did not result in a criminal record.
Itís so much of a stretch that itís actually inadmissible to introduce prior bad acts to impeach a witness.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 06:28 PM   #60
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,827
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Itís so much of a stretch that itís actually inadmissible to introduce prior bad acts to impeach a witness.
Sonsabitch, it's almost like your constant contrafactual claims should be given equal credibility as Reade after her claims in court of law!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 06:35 PM   #61
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,190
I fear several posters are in danger of losing their credibility here!

If it's allowed to discuss Biden presidential candidacy topics other than Reade's accusation, what's with the recent stories about maybe him picking Warren as VP candidate? I'm against it: despite her being my preferred presidential candidate, I don't see her being VP as being a win for the country. Losing her in the Senate would be a distinct negative not balanced out by her as a VP, despite the chances of Biden dying and leaving her as president. I think VP needs to be someone much younger than Biden, and if they do a good job they could be a presidential candidate themselves some day.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 06:36 PM   #62
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,827
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This isn't a court of law. You're not a trial lawyer. I'm not a jury. The claim is either supported by evidence or it isn't.

Credibility is important to me, just not in this particular context. Reade could be the most trustworthy person in the world, and I wouldn't convict Biden of raping her based on her say-so alone.

It's weird how much effort you've put in, over weeks, developing a point that's not even in contention, and doesn't actually make any difference here.
No, it demonstrably isn't. You voted Trump. You've argued for weeks that Reade's credibility isn't important. You've ignored legal and social precedent. No, you have done everything in your power to argue for weeks that despite legal and social norms, credibility is not important.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 06:44 PM   #63
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,827
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I fear several posters are in danger of losing their credibility here!

If it's allowed to discuss Biden presidential candidacy topics other than Reade's accusation, what's with the recent stories about maybe him picking Warren as VP candidate? I'm against it: despite her being my preferred presidential candidate, I don't see her being VP as being a win for the country. Losing her in the Senate would be a distinct negative not balanced out by her as a VP, despite the chances of Biden dying and leaving her as president. I think VP needs to be someone much younger than Biden, and if they do a good job they could be a presidential candidate themselves some day.
Hmm, I haven't seen any stories that Warren was the VP. Amy Klobuchar was the most recent "definitely the VP" story I've seen. I agree, we don't want to risk any more Senate seats, so Warren should stay where she is.

What do you think of Stacey Abrams as a VP pick? She did lose GA as governor, but she seems to tick off a lot of boxes that Biden may be weak in. I'm also pointedly ignoring the "hopefully the candidate that the majority of voters chose dies" speculation as being both bad form and self-defeating.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 06:46 PM   #64
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,307
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I fear several posters are in danger of losing their credibility here!

If it's allowed to discuss Biden presidential candidacy topics other than Reade's accusation, what's with the recent stories about maybe him picking Warren as VP candidate? I'm against it: despite her being my preferred presidential candidate, I don't see her being VP as being a win for the country. Losing her in the Senate would be a distinct negative not balanced out by her as a VP, despite the chances of Biden dying and leaving her as president. I think VP needs to be someone much younger than Biden, and if they do a good job they could be a presidential candidate themselves some day.
I can see the validity of the points you raise and share some of those concerns, however there are the benefits, apart from her competence, of setting up a buffer/bridge for the 'moderates' to ease into giving the 'progressives' more political capital within the party, if not to the general public. Having a progressive in a high-visibility office for four years without progressive policies casting the US down into a miscegenation socialist orgy (sadly), could do a lot for the long term acceptance of progressive ideas.

This is to say nothing about the cred with the very angry and hurting progressive wing without alienating the moderates for the actual election such a pick would generate. Er...could. A lot of the 'progressives' are not for compromise and are going to stay very angry and hurt.

Still not my first pick for a VP, despite my belief no one could do more with the office since Cheney than Warren, but also not what I'd consider a huge miscalculation.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 06:48 PM   #65
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,307
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Hmm, I haven't seen any stories that Warren was the VP. Amy Klobuchar was the most recent "definitely the VP" story I've seen. I agree, we don't want to risk any more Senate seats, so Warren should stay where she is.

What do you think of Stacey Abrams as a VP pick? She did lose GA as governor, but she seems to tick off a lot of boxes that Biden may be weak in. I'm also pointedly ignoring the "hopefully the candidate that the majority of voters chose dies" speculation as being both bad form and self-defeating.
I also intrigued by the suggestion of Pete for SecState. At first I was highly skeptical of it, but he does seem to have quite a bit of international good will which is important to the job, but scuttlebutt is that he has a ton of credibility with the intelligence community in the US too.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 06:56 PM   #66
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,069
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If it's allowed to discuss Biden presidential candidacy topics other than Reade's accusation, what's with the recent stories about maybe him picking Warren as VP candidate? I'm against it: despite her being my preferred presidential candidate, I don't see her being VP as being a win for the country. Losing her in the Senate would be a distinct negative not balanced out by her as a VP...
I remember seeing someone here mentioning that Massachusetts has a republican gov. So if Warren gives up her seat to become VP, he will get to appoint someone to fill her seat (at least until a special election is called.) Granted, it will only be for a short period of time, but still, that will be during a critical time when the Senate will be considering cabinet nominees.

The only thing she would have going for her is a supposed ability to 'unite' the far-left/progressives in the party behind Biden. But given how detached from reality they are, he could make her the VP candidate, and the BernieBros will still sit out the election (or vote 3rd party/vote Trump) because they still won't consider it enough.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 07:13 PM   #67
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 15,462
Quote:
f) Character is also different from credibility: The character of a person (how they are likely to behave) is rarely in issue; the credibility of a witness (how likely they are to be completely truthful) is always in issue. Evidence that a witness lacks credibility obviously also impugns that person's character, but is independently admissible under the Impeachment Rules -- 607,608, 609 and 616 -- covered later in the course.
Quote:
3. Character of victim. The accused may offer evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim that is material to the crime. After the accused places the victim's character in issue, the prosecutor may offer rebuttal evidence on that same trait. The state may rebut only as to the victim's character, not the defendant's.
https://www.law.indiana.edu/instruct...06char/T06.pdf


Quote:
The majority of US jurisdictions permit parties to impeach witnesses by demonstrating their "bad" character regarding truthfulness. Under the Federal Rules a party may demonstrate that by reputation or opinion testimony.[6] That is, a witness's credibility cannot be bolstered, only impeached.
([6]F.R.E. 405(a), Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute)
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 07:35 PM   #68
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,190
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
What do you think of Stacey Abrams as a VP pick? She did lose GA as governor, but she seems to tick off a lot of boxes that Biden may be weak in.
I think she may be my favorite of the bunch. I don't care for Klobuchar or Buttigieg for the role (or any other). Yang wouldn't be my first choice, but I wouldn't hate the idea. Cory Booker I wouldn't mind either but that would be the same Senate problem as with Warren. I think the other Democratic candidates aren't the best field from which to choose a VP this time, despite there having been so many of them.

Whatever happened to that guy from San Antonio? I forget his name, but even my oooooold school Republican grandmother liked him.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 07:43 PM   #69
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
https://www.law.indiana.edu/instruct...06char/T06.pdf



([6]F.R.E. 405(a), Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute)

If itís material to the crime. You missed that part. An expunged record of a bad check, horse charity shenanigans, some guy who felt manipulated...these things are not material to the crime.

A prior false allegation of rape is material.

You also missed the part in your second citation where it said ďwhen evidence of a personís character...is admissible.Ē Guess when itís admissible...
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 07:47 PM   #70
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,117
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
What do you mean by "C-change"? Do you mean "sea-change" which refers to a massive shift in the surrounding environment, or something else?
When I heard it I thought it meant the wrong thing.

When you go from C to the next C on a piano, the tone changes but all the keys repeat.

As illustrated here.

So I always thought it meant a big change such as occurs when going up or down from C to the next C on a piano.

But looking it up it appears I've always had a misunderstanding about it.

Thanks for asking.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 07:49 PM   #71
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,117
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Why donít you take it up with Mumbles as he is the one who suggested it was a joke?

My point in that exchange was that apologists will write it off as a joke (as Mumbles did) or a gaffe (as others have).

Maybe you should berate the people who made the statement instead of the guy who responded to it.
OK.

__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 08:01 PM   #72
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,026
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
What do you mean by "C-change"? Do you mean "sea-change" which refers to a massive shift in the surrounding environment, or something else?
A sea change is not a change in the surrounding environment. It's a total transformation of the thing itself. Taken from Shakespeare's The Tempest:
Full fathom five thy father lies,
Of his bones are coral made,
Those are pearls that were his eyes,
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change,
into something rich and strange,
Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell,
Ding-dong.
Hark! now I hear them, ding-dong, bell.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 08:17 PM   #73
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,304
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Itís so much of a stretch that itís actually inadmissible to introduce prior bad acts to impeach a witness.
Evidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

Quote:
The majority of US jurisdictions permit parties to impeach witnesses by demonstrating their "bad" character regarding truthfulness.
In any case, this is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Each voter may make up his or her own mind based on the facts in evidence, and to me, a history of lying is information about the credibility of the witness. If it's true that she actually misrepresented her qualifications as an expert witness in a court of law, that would be relevant information to me.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 08:33 PM   #74
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,304
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If it's allowed to discuss Biden presidential candidacy topics other than Reade's accusation, what's with the recent stories about maybe him picking Warren as VP candidate? I'm against it: despite her being my preferred presidential candidate, I don't see her being VP as being a win for the country. Losing her in the Senate would be a distinct negative not balanced out by her as a VP, despite the chances of Biden dying and leaving her as president. I think VP needs to be someone much younger than Biden, and if they do a good job they could be a presidential candidate themselves some day.
I wouldn't put much stock in the speculation. That's a good point though. I sort of think he would prefer to pick an African American woman, but I don't know.

I thought he might have already promised the job to Klobuchar if she would drop out before Super Tuesday, which she did. Warren was more of a thorn in the side of Bernie. Her staying in the race hurt him more than Biden. If that's the case and he already promised Klobuchar the job, this could all be just Kabuki theater.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 08:42 PM   #75
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,190
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
this could all be just Kabuki theater.
I'd love love love to have Vice President Kabuki, in full makeup, for an entire four years.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 09:22 PM   #76
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,499
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think she may be my favorite of the bunch. I don't care for Klobuchar or Buttigieg for the role (or any other). Yang wouldn't be my first choice, but I wouldn't hate the idea. Cory Booker I wouldn't mind either but that would be the same Senate problem as with Warren. I think the other Democratic candidates aren't the best field from which to choose a VP this time, despite there having been so many of them.

Whatever happened to that guy from San Antonio? I forget his name, but even my oooooold school Republican grandmother liked him.
In case you weren't being sarcastic ..... Beto O'Rourke?
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 10:39 PM   #77
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,608
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Oddly enough, the evidence has been quoted a few times now, just selectively.

Quote:
In any case, this is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Each voter may make up his or her own mind based on the facts in evidence, and to me, a history of lying is information about the credibility of the witness. If it's true that she actually misrepresented her qualifications as an expert witness in a court of law, that would be relevant information to me.
I understand that. I just think it's wrong.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 11:57 PM   #78
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,002
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Why donít you take it up with Mumbles as he is the one who suggested it was a joke?

My point in that exchange was that apologists will write it off as a joke (as Mumbles did) or a gaffe (as others have).

Maybe you should berate the people who made the statement instead of the guy who responded to it.
Well, I said it was a joke because...it was. Again, it's rather popular to slap black republicans, though it's generally more "Man, can't you see they don't respect you?" than ""you're a coon." among the more serious types. When Michael Steele became RNC Chair, the GOP put an incredible number of restrictions on what he could do, what he could spend, etc. without the approval of Moscow Mitch and the like - and when he raised a record sum of money for campaigns anyway, they immediately kicked him out.

Then wre have clowns and grifters like Candace Owens, who just a couple of weeks ago all but stated outright that Ahmaud Arbery deserved to be murdered, now trying to make something out of this - these folks tend to attract the outright insults, mostly because they happily tell white audiences about how lazy/stupid/violent/docile the vast majority of black people are, for money. It's not really Biden's place to say that these folks aren't really black...but on the other hand, I doubt they're respected in any major black community.

(And I see Dolt 45's campaign has an ad and shirts with this, which the Bernie Stans are calling "devastating!" Yeah sure, those shirts will be all the rage with Dolt 45's white racist base.)
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2020, 05:22 AM   #79
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,190
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
In case you weren't being sarcastic ..... Beto O'Rourke?
No, I was thinking of Julian Castro, I guess.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2020, 05:47 AM   #80
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,130
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I fear several posters are in danger of losing their credibility here!

If it's allowed to discuss Biden presidential candidacy topics other than Reade's accusation, what's with the recent stories about maybe him picking Warren as VP candidate? I'm against it: despite her being my preferred presidential candidate, I don't see her being VP as being a win for the country. Losing her in the Senate would be a distinct negative not balanced out by her as a VP, despite the chances of Biden dying and leaving her as president. I think VP needs to be someone much younger than Biden, and if they do a good job they could be a presidential candidate themselves some day.
I'm not sure what factors would be influencing a VP selection. Warren seems like a poor choice to me. Her continued backpedaling on M4A and zombie campaign to undermine Sanders soured her popularity among the progressives. She's from MA, which is a guaranteed D victory, so brings no home-state advantage to a swing state. She's also old, Harvard-prof white lady, which isn't exactly a demographic that needs shoring up by the Biden ticket. I don't see her addition as bringing many undecided votes to the Biden ticket.

I am enjoying her completely backpedal on her firm positions in order to court the VP slot, but I think it's unlikely it will pay off. I hope she remains in the Senate and resumes taking an adversarial role to the policies that Biden has advocated in the past. She had been one of the clearest voices for regulations favoring ordinary people. It remains unclear if she will resume such a stance if it means opposing the Biden administration.

I have no idea who is actually going to get the nod. I would bet it's someone younger and not-white, with a bit more charisma. If not, perhaps a selection from a swing state, or preferably someone that is all of the above.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 26th May 2020 at 05:51 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.