Biden for President?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by wareyin

This is like the repo man thing you were on about before, right?

Yes, I think the smears based on Reade fearing her car being repossessed were just as frivolous and detached from reality as the wild speculation about her being a check fraudster. The desperate attempts to weave a broader narrative attacking her credibility from these irrelevant facts were shameful.

Assuming these allegations about her lying about her degree are true, I expect these other imaginary scandals will disappear entirely because they are no longer politically expedient.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Biden has contentious interview with Charlamagne tha God, a black co-host of "the Breakfast club". During the back and forth, Biden says:



https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...terview-274490

Throw this into the pile with all the other comments of Biden browbeating potential voters who ask him pointed questions.

I'm not political expert, but saying the quiet part out loud about how Black voters really don't have any option but to vote D probably isn't a good strategy.

A bad joke - the Breakfast Club is simply an unfortunate gatekeeper now that Tom Joyner has retired, even if it's currently the largest syndicated black radio program.

(Could Desus and Mero please move to take the top spot?)

The problem isn't that it may shift votes to the Donnie Go Back to Africa, it's that it could convince people to sit it out.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Biden has contentious interview with Charlamagne tha God, a black co-host of "the Breakfast club". During the back and forth, Biden says:



https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...terview-274490

Throw this into the pile with all the other comments of Biden browbeating potential voters who ask him pointed questions.

I'm not political expert, but saying the quiet part out loud about how Black voters really don't have any option but to vote D probably isn't a good strategy.

Okay bullworth

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

A bad joke - the Breakfast Club is simply an unfortunate gatekeeper now that Tom Joyner has retired, even if it's currently the largest syndicated black radio program.

(Could Desus and Mero please move to take the top spot?)

The problem isn't that it may shift votes to the Donnie Go Back to Africa, it's that it could convince people to sit it out.

Yes, viewing the longer video it seems more like a joke in poor taste on Biden's part rather than an overt attack on the host. Atthe very least, the host's commenting after the fact leads me to believe he didn't interpret it as a very contentious exchange.

I'd probably categorize this more as a gaffe than anything more sinister.

probably best for a white guy not to make jokes about who is or is not black, especially in response to valid questions about how much influence black people will have in the Democratic Party. The perception of black people being hostages of a two party system is bad enough without giving the right such soundbites.

Edit: Pretty funny watching the right-wingers make a bigger deal out of this though. Trump pretty much said Jewish Democrats were race traitors to Israel on the White House lawn, but Biden's comment is beyond the pale.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Yes, I think the smears based on Reade fearing her car being repossessed were just as frivolous and detached from reality as the wild speculation about her being a check fraudster. The desperate attempts to weave a broader narrative attacking her credibility from these irrelevant facts were shameful.

Assuming these allegations about her lying about her degree are true, I expect these other imaginary scandals will disappear entirely because they are no longer politically expedient.

Ok. And since only one particular poster kept bringing up the repo man as an attempted gotcha, I think we can safely ignore it when the same poster attempts the same lame gotcha with regard to the check fraud.

[theprestige]

I don't think it was even a joke, exactly. I think it was more just a part of his overall sales pitch. "My policies will be better for black people than Trump's policies. Black people understand this, even though white people may lack the necessary life experience to see it clearly."

He was trying to be pithy, and it came out a little bit weird and divisive and racist instead.

And arrogant. "White people are still divided on the question of my superiority to Donald Trump, but black people are all united in their support for me."

And weird. Did I already say weird? "You know who's figured out the difference between that rich old white man and this rich old white man? Black people."

Corn Pop probably did at least a half turn in his grave.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't think it was even a joke, exactly. I think it was more just a part of his overall sales pitch. "My policies will be better for black people than Trump's policies. Black people understand this, even though white people may lack the necessary life experience to see it clearly."

He was trying to be pithy, and it came out a little bit weird and divisive and racist instead.

And arrogant. "White people are still divided on the question of my superiority to Donald Trump, but black people are all united in their support for me."

And weird. Did I already say weird? "You know who's figured out the difference between that rich old white man and this rich old white man? Black people."

Corn Pop probably did at least a half turn in his grave.

Everything after your first paragraph ignores how absolutely **** Trump has been for black people (and brown people, and women, and well all people in general). Maybe when you take that into account, it colors things differently?

[varwoche]

Reade's lawyer, said to be a prominent metoo person, has dropped her. link

At this point, the only people making hay over this non credible accusation are Trump, his supporters, and disgruntled Bernie supporters who are unable/unwilling to recognize just how flimsy this is.

[theprestige]

I don't think it was even a joke, exactly. I think it was more just a part of his overall sales pitch. "My policies will be better for black people than Trump's policies. Black people understand this, even though white people may lack the necessary life experience to see it clearly."

He was trying to be pithy, and it came out a little bit weird and divisive and racist instead.

And arrogant. "White people are still divided on the question of my superiority to Donald Trump, but black people are all united in their support for me."

And weird. Did I already say weird? "You know who's figured out the difference between that rich old white man and this rich old white man? Black people."

Corn Pop probably did at least a half turn in his grave.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Reade's lawyer, said to be a prominent metoo person, has dropped her. link

At this point, the only people making hay over this non credible accusation are Trump, his supporters, and disgruntled Bernie supporters who are unable/unwilling to recognize just how flimsy this is.

And not even them, really.

The past two weeks in this thread, the only people still making hay over it have been Biden's supporters, with some bipartisan pushback that maybe they don't need to go so far, nor keep going.

At this point I kinda think they're keeping the Reade thing alive to distract from Biden's senility and corrupt offspring. #winkyface

[xjx388]

Somebody better tell Kanye West Diamond and Silk they ain't black.

New Biden campaign slogan:

Don't be an Uncle Tom; vote for Uncle Joe!

Anyway, it's a weird world we are living in these days, where we attack the credibility of sexual assault accusers and tell black people they aren't black enough.

[theprestige]

Q. How can you recognize an authentic black person?

A. They know to vote for a rich old white man.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Q. How can you recognize an authentic black person?

A. They know to vote for a rich old white man.

Are we to infer that you believe they should know their place and not vote?

[thaiboxerken]

Trump proved to black people that there is plenty to lose by going with Trump. Their lives, their jobs, their livelihood.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Q. How can you recognize an authentic black person?

A. They know to vote for a rich old white man.

What's their choice in November for POTUS? A rich old white man vs..?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Yes, viewing the longer video it seems more like a joke in poor taste on Biden's part rather than an overt attack on the host. Atthe very least, the host's commenting after the fact leads me to believe he didn't interpret it as a very contentious exchange.

I strongly doubt it was at all hostile - although for various reasons I refuse to listen to The Breakfast Club, so I can't be sure. Charma-*ugh, jeez*

Charlamagne tha God is generally a friendly interviewer, even managing to be somewhat decent to Tomi Lahren after naming her "donkey of the day" due to some stupid thing or other she said.

Quote:

I'd probably categorize this more as a gaffe than anything more sinister.

probably best for a white guy not to make jokes about who is or is not black, especially in response to valid questions about how much influence black people will have in the Democratic Party. The perception of black people being hostages of a two party system is bad enough without giving the right such soundbites.

It's basically useless in their hands when his opponent is Mr "Nationwide Stop and Frisk" "******** countries", but I look forward to not paying attention to whatever Burlap and Quartz have to say about it. Or Candace Owens. Whoever.

I'll note that he was actually looking at the undecided black voters, not the Dolt 45 fans, though. However, while he's not as obviously racist as Dolt 45 is, Biden's record isn't exactly sterling. Frankly, *that* one left with Harris, Booker, and Castro, although maybe Beto could've joined the club had he stuck around long enough. Even Sanders said he thought 90% of drug dealers were black a few years back.

[shemp]

On a scale of 1-10, Biden's gaffe is a 3. Trump blows at least an 8 several times a day.

[SuburbanTurkey]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...?sref=mcGDIgQz

Quote:

Biden Limits Press Access to Virtual Wall Street Fundraiser

Secret meetings for wall street fundraisers only. Super cool and good actually.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

From the NY Times article on this issue:


(Antioch used quarters rather than semesters, so 35 hours is less than a full year's worth of credits.)

The Times also furnished this quote from the trial transcript:


apparently as part of an attempt to imply that she had worked on the Violence Against Women Act.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/u...edentials.html

Thanks for posting this. If, in fact, Reade did not receive a degree from Antioch, then how does that affect her law degree? Could Seattle U rescind her degree? I would think it could and would since she has not met the requirements for the law degree.

I suspect that Reade could also now be charged with perjury on several counts considering she lied under oath about her professional qualifications.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I suppose it's nice that the smear campaign against Reade has a real meaty accusation to dig into rather than tedious speculations about bounced checks or miffed landlords. Regardless on how things turn out for Reade regarding her degree, I still stand by my characterizations of the smear campaign for these imagined bombshells.

.

They are getting warmer, but running with the lie angle without some idea of why Seattle University was satisfied she had a degree seems a bit like the same kind of death by paper cut angle.

If a law school accepted her that means they were satisfied she has documented proof of a college degree. Which means she had a degree, she had a reasonable belief she had a degree, or this was some hard-core fraud and that law school was being run by muppets. Only the third has any bearing on her credibility. The second was the B-plot of a Night Court episode.

Something more definite should come out of that in these criminal cases. As far as I can tell they would have to show this was a knowing lie in order to have a compelling case for reversal. The degree itself wasn't related to the substance of her testimony. That was all from her work history. If she lied on the stand and the defense could have impeached her at trial for lying on the stand then that is a different story.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Somebody better tell Kanye West Diamond and Silk they ain't black.

New Biden campaign slogan:

Don't be an Uncle Tom; vote for Uncle Joe!

Anyway, it's a weird world we are living in these days, where we attack the credibility of sexual assault accusers and tell black people they aren't black enough.

When has anyone claimed that accusers are immune to being accused? The Duke lacrosse case is a rather famous example of an accuser who was accused, and investigation showed that the accuser had lied, and the 'perpetrators' were actually the accuser's victims. What nonsense is this, that by making an accusation, she can protect herself from her victims?

[Scopedog]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Frankly, *that* one left with Harris, Booker, and Castro, although maybe Beto could've joined the club had he stuck around long enough.

With regard to Beto, what 'club' are you referring to?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I have to admit, this accusation about Reade's undergraduate degree is pretty severe. Hopefully we get some sort of firm resolution soon. If the worst accusation is true, Reade misrepresented herself in order to get a law degree and intentionally perjured herself on numerous occasions, really casting a lot of doubt on her credibility.

I suppose it's nice that the smear campaign against Reade has a real meaty accusation to dig into rather than tedious speculations about bounced checks or miffed landlords. Regardless on how things turn out for Reade regarding her degree, I still stand by my characterizations of the smear campaign for these imagined bombshells.

Given the gravity of the accusation about Reade committing perjury, I imagine we'll actually get a firm resolution with some concrete proof, rather than Twitter speculation about check fraud. Diplomas will or won't be produced, court records will be examined, etc.

Whatever the conclusion, I stand by my claim that the desperate fascination about bad checks was a shameful attempt to make an otherwise unverifiable, politically inconvenient sexual assault claim disappear.

Your continued attempts to minimize the evidence that Reade is habitually dishonest doesn't fly.
"Miffed landlords"? More liked "stiffed landlords". Reade has a long pattern of failure to pay her rent and to meet other financial responsibilities. She manipulated people she owed money to by lying to them with a sad story of an abusive ex-husband she was trying to escape. She is a manipulative, deceitful liar.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by theprestige

And not even them, really.

The past two weeks in this thread, the only people still making hay over it have been Biden's supporters, with some bipartisan pushback that maybe they don't need to go so far, nor keep going.

I take it then that someone has hacked your account and that you have not made all these posts over the last two weeks 'making hay' over the allegation?

Quote:

At this point I kinda think they're keeping the Reade thing alive to distract from Biden's senility and corrupt offspring. #winkyface

Then you need to think again. And a #winkyface does not hide your attempt to resurrect the 'senility and corrupt offspring' nonsense.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Thanks for posting this. If, in fact, Reade did not receive a degree from Antioch, then how does that affect her law degree? Could Seattle U rescind her degree? I would think it could and would since she has not met the requirements for the law degree.

The Seattle U. has a special admissions program ("Access Admission Program") for people from "under-represented" groups, and I did not see an explicit requirement for a Bachelor's degree mentioned. Given that she enrolled at Antioch in the fall of 2000 and enrolled in law school in the fall of 2001, I don't see how she could have completed a degree before entering law school unless she had almost completed a degree somewhere else

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by theprestige

the only people still making hay over it have been Biden's supporters, with some bipartisan pushback that maybe they don't need to go so far, nor keep going.

At this point I kinda think they're keeping the Reade thing alive to distract from Biden's senility and corrupt offspring. #winkyface

More from how republican & against the peasants he is and how voting for him is voting for the continued ongoing republicanization of the D Party.

It has been interesting watching a bunch of Biden supporters flipping out over this while occasionally working in an accusation that it's all somehow being kept alive by the people who've been completely silent about it... between rounds of admitting that we're not the ones flipping out about it but pretending that that simply must be because it wasn't going the way we'd hoped & planned.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What's their choice in November for POTUS? A rich old white man vs..?

A sort-of-rich-but-obsessed-with-pretending-to-be-much-richer orange one

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

The Seattle U. has a special admissions program ("Access Admission Program") for people from "under-represented" groups, and I did not see an explicit requirement for a Bachelor's degree mentioned. Given that she enrolled at Antioch in the fall of 2000 and enrolled in law school in the fall of 2001, I don't see how she could have completed a degree before entering law school unless she had almost completed a degree somewhere else

On their admissions page, a bachelor's degree is listed as a requirement. I suspect that the Access program is for people who don't have great grades and test scores, not for people who don't have a degree. I don't know, but it seems likely that the ABA would require an undergrad degree for applicants as a condition of accreditation.

Quote:

As a candidate for admission, you must have earned a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university prior to your enrollment. In addition, you must have received a competitive score on the LSAT or the GRE General Test and have registered with the LSAC's Credential Assembly Service (CAS).

https://law.seattleu.edu/admission/p...n-requirements

There's also this from the Times story:

Quote:

Seattle University School of Law confirmed that Ms. Reade graduated with a J.D. degree in 2004. The school only considers accepting students with bachelor’s degrees, according to its website. But it would not share what degree Ms. Reade presented with her initial application, citing federal privacy standards.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/u...edentials.html

Also from the story:

Quote:

To protect her identity as a survivor of domestic abuse, Ms. Reade says she received her degree through the private assistance of the school’s then-president, Tullisse Murdock. She says she never received a diploma or requested one since she was “fast-tracked” to law school.

“The president took it from the registrar and did it herself for complete confidentiality,” she said in an interview.

But Ms. Hamilton, the Antioch spokeswoman, told The Times that it had spoken with Ms. Murdock, and that there was no such special arrangement with Ms. Reade. It takes 180 credits to graduate, and students earn up to a maximum of 45 for life experience or prior studies, according to the school’s website.

Does that even make any sense? "I have a super secret degree in a different name that nobody can know about." What?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Speaking of courts of law, it appears that Tara Reade lied under oath while acting as an expert witness during a criminal trial.

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/...6b2cd779e.html

This is really blowing up into a scandal. At least six cases that resulted in convictions may now be appealed or the convictions thrown out. The law school she went to is refusing to answer questions on how she got in without the required Bachelors degree which may result in them suffering penalties as well.



Some Bernie supporting "reporters" unleashed all this when they refused to investigate a woman they hoped to use to usurp the will of the voters. Absolutely incredible.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Travis

This is really blowing up into a scandal. At least six cases that resulted in convictions may now be appealed or the convictions thrown out. The law school she went to is refusing to answer questions on how she got in without the required Bachelors degree which may result in them suffering penalties as well.
.....

In the law school's defense, there are privacy restrictions on what information they can release about their students. But Antioch is pretty clearly saying she didn't get a degree from them.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I take it then that someone has hacked your account and that you have not made all these posts over the last two weeks 'making hay' over the allegation?

I've been on the bipartisan pushback side.

What "hay" have I made of this accusation? I don't recall ever suggesting the accusation was true and that Biden is therefore disqualified, or anything like that. The last couple weeks in this thread has been mostly you and others doing a deep dive into Reade's reputation, and me and others mostly saying that's probably not necessary since the claim can just be dismissed on its (lack of) merits anyway.

You've been defending against an attack nobody has actually been making in several weeks.

Quote:

Then you need to think again. And a #winkyface does not hide your attempt to resurrect the 'senility and corrupt offspring' nonsense.

It was wareyin that resurrected it, remember? At least, I think it was him that sounded the alarm that once the Reade thing went under, we'd return to the senility and Huntergate things.

Personally I thought both those topics were pretty much played out. I'm not a big fan of parsing Joe Biden's behavior for senility (for a mix of principled and pragmatic reasons). If he's a gaffe machine, he's a gaffe machine. That's not going to go away just because we haven't talked about it for a month.

But I have no problem riffing on wareyin's warning.

WAREYIN: If we stop talking about Reade, they'll just bring up Biden's senility again.

STACYHS: Let's keep talking about Reade!

ME: When you put it that way, I can see how it kinda makes sense to keep talking about Reade, far past the point where anyone is trying to defend her accusations.

Tell you what: If you stop talking about Reade's reputation, I promise not to bring up Biden's senility.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...?sref=mcGDIgQz



Secret meetings for wall street fundraisers only. Super cool and good actually.

I'm pretty sure that limiting press access to fundraisers is within the bounds of reasonable candidate behavior, across the political spectrum. I certainly don't consider it a sin, or a mark against Biden.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by shemp

On a scale of 1-10, Biden's gaffe is a 3. Trump blows at least an 8 several times a day.

"Joe Biden: Not half as bad as Donald Trump. Biden 2020!"

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Thanks for posting this. If, in fact, Reade did not receive a degree from Antioch, then how does that affect her law degree? Could Seattle U rescind her degree? I would think it could and would since she has not met the requirements for the law degree.

I suspect that Reade could also now be charged with perjury on several counts considering she lied under oath about her professional qualifications.

We've now made the transition from "how can we prove she's lying about Joe Biden?" to "how can we make sure she's punished for her lies?"

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

They are getting warmer, but running with the lie angle without some idea of why Seattle University was satisfied she had a degree seems a bit like the same kind of death by paper cut angle.

If a law school accepted her that means they were satisfied she has documented proof of a college degree. Which means she had a degree, she had a reasonable belief she had a degree, or this was some hard-core fraud and that law school was being run by muppets. Only the third has any bearing on her credibility. The second was the B-plot of a Night Court episode.

There is a possibility that she could have gotten into the law school without a college degree (it isn't explicitly stated as a requirement for their "Access Admission Program").

Quote:

Something more definite should come out of that in these criminal cases. As far as I can tell they would have to show this was a knowing lie in order to have a compelling case for reversal. The degree itself wasn't related to the substance of her testimony. That was all from her work history. If she lied on the stand and the defense could have impeached her at trial for lying on the stand then that is a different story.

The issue is that she was testifying as an "expert witness", so if she exaggerated her background then the other side (in this case, the defense) might have grounds to argue that she didn't establish herself as an "expert" and therefore should not have been allowed to testify.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by theprestige

We've now made the transition from "how can we prove she's lying about Joe Biden?" to "how can we make sure she's punished for her lies?"

Let this be a lesson to any woman who dares accuse powerful men.

[xjx388]

wrong thread. Somehow.

[theprestige]

They all kind of blur together after a while.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Let this be a lesson to any woman who dares accuse powerful men.

That's rich, coming from the person who said this:-

Originally Posted by xjx388

From where I sit, I don’t think either of those gentlemen should have been subjected to what they went through based on vague and uncorroborated accusations. I am not one of those who thinks the mere existence of allegations -especially allegations arising from distant events that are uncorroborated and have scant evidence- should warrant much investigation at all. Serious allegations require real evidence to take seriously and publicly drag people’s reputations through the mud.

[MinnesotaBrant]

I think Kamala Harris would make the best veep as she would grab more of the progressive vote without alerting anyone. Amy Klobuchar is a funky smart babe that would be an asset to but not my Besty because her office did not reply to a letter I wrote her

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

That's rich, coming from the person who said this:-

What exactly is wrong with what I said? If there's no evidence, there's nothing to investigate. That's uncontroversial. OTOH, digging up sordid details about an accuser's life in order to discredit the allegation causes harm to the accuser and does not actually disprove the accusations they make. It just makes it easier for some to dismiss the allegations because they have pushed this "Believe Women," narrative and they need to find reasons to not believe particular women. Which just makes it harder for women to come forward.

If I had to reframe that rather useless, feel-good mantra, I'd change it to, "Listen to Women."