Biden for President? - Page 94

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

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.

I never said you suggested the accusation was true, but you've been a big part of keeping the conversation alive. You've made many comments within the last two weeks regarding Reade including why her credibility is irrelevant.

Quote:

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.

Nope. As long as there's a Trump campaign ad airing using Reade's allegations, it's a relevant topic. And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility. When more information is found relevant to that, it will be presented and discussed. Discuss Biden's 'gaffes' all you want; they're fair game. But that's not the same as 'senility' and you know that. But nice touch.

Suddenly · 22nd May 2020, 01:29 PM

I do like how the Times article refers to the credit hours required to graduate without saying anything about this being 20 years ago and whether anything has changed about that. Also the 45 hours of "prior learning" as if that and transfer credit are the same thing.

Quote:

As a student enrolled in AULA’s Bachelor’s Completion Program, you can transfer the credits you’ve already earned from an accredited institution. A maximum of 135 transfer units (calculated as quarter units) can be credited toward your BA degree at AULA.
...

Units accepted for transfer count toward the 180 minimum required for the degree.

If we want to play detective and ignore that the information is 20 years later, she could transfer in 135, so...

Quote:

She sent The Times a screenshot of a transcript showing her with 35 course credits,

Math fans will note this leaves her short of the 180 needed. Which would lean towards "no degree."

It is possible that in 2000 they were still on a semester system and that 35 is well enough to put her over the top (like if these numbers are the more classic 120/90 instead of 180/135). I don't know that, but then again I'm not writing for the NYT.

Bob001 · 22nd May 2020, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

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").

It is stated on their admissions page. I suspect the Access option is for people who don't have great grades and test scores, not for people who didn't graduate from college. Why would they have any reason to do that?

Quote:

As a candidate for admission, you must have earned a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university prior to your enrollment.

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

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

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.

She also would have been committing perjury in court, and accepting payment from the DA's office under false pretenses. This is a serious problem for her.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd May 2020, 01:34 PM

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?"

Oh yeah like that's our fault.

It doesn't have anything to do with people in the forum. They are just posting what they are reading and hearing.

TellyKNeasuss · 22nd May 2020, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

It is stated on their admissions page. I suspect the Access option is for people who don't have great grades and test scores, not for people who didn't graduate from college. Why would they have any reason to do that?

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

Yes, it is stated on their admission page. But it is not stated on their "Access Admissions Program" page.

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

I do like how the Times article refers to the credit hours required to graduate without saying anything about this being 20 years ago and whether anything has changed about that. Also the 45 hours of "prior learning" as if that and transfer credit are the same thing.

If we want to play detective and ignore that the information is 20 years later, she could transfer in 135, so...

Math fans will note this leaves her short of the 180 needed. Which would lean towards "no degree."

It is possible that in 2000 they were still on a semester system and that 35 is well enough to put her over the top (like if these numbers are the more classic 120/90 instead of 180/135). I don't know that, but then again I'm not writing for the NYT.

Their academic catalogue online only goes back to 2008-09. They were on the quarter system then. But this from Wikipedia states:

Quote:

From its inception, racial and gender equality, independent study, and independent thinking were integral parts of Antioch College. Six students were accepted for the first quarter: four men and two women who came to share the same college classrooms for the first time in the U.S

I think it's safe to assume it was on the quarter system at the time Reade attended.

shemp · 22nd May 2020, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

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

6.

xjx388 · 22nd May 2020, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility.

And what is credibility predicated on, if not one's reputation?

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd May 2020, 01:54 PM

I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not?

Suddenly · 22nd May 2020, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

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.

Probably not. She claimed a degree with a concentration in poly sci, which is consistent with the degree program she claims and which has nothing to do with the subject matter of her testimony. It is a biographical detail way more than it is a qualification as an expert.

She was qualified based on work experience.

All you need to be qualified as an expert witness is special knowledge that is helpful to the jury. You can be a convicted meth cook with a 10th grade education and be an expert about what items are suitable to use as part of an improvised lab. There is a published case about using a drug addict as an expert to establish the identity of a controlled substance (instead of a lab report).

The way this is possibly useful to attack a conviction is as undisclosed exculpatory evidence that would have been useful to impeach a state witness. Pretty clear that being able to catch a witness lying on the stand would have had some effect at trial. It isn't that simple, but that is the general idea.

wasapi · 22nd May 2020, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not?

If she had taken the exam even once and failed, wouldn't there be some record of that? Just curious.

Suddenly · 22nd May 2020, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not?

The California bar exam is famously brutal.

Past that, most careers in law suck.

Probably a combination. Flunk the bar once or twice, fall into something else while planning to try again, see how miserable most of your former classmates who passed the bar feel, and consider it a bullet well dodged.

Not an unusual career path.

Bob001 · 22nd May 2020, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Probably not. She claimed a degree with a concentration in poly sci, which is consistent with the degree program she claims and which has nothing to do with the subject matter of her testimony. It is a biographical detail way more than it is a qualification as an expert.

She was qualified based on work experience.
.....

Except if she testified under oath that she "graduated" from or "had a degree" from Antioch, that would be a lie if it's not true. If she just said she "attended" Antioch, that would not be the same. Tell any employer that you "graduated" from college when you only attended a couple semesters, and it will be a problem.

And of course all this raises the question of whether she exaggerated her work experience, too. She apparently claimed to be a "legislative assistant" to Biden, which is a distinct job on Capitol Hill, rather than office help. What did she actually do to be designated an "expert" on domestic violence?

Suddenly · 22nd May 2020, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

And what is credibility predicated on, if not one's reputation?

One's reputation of credibility in matters of substantially equal weight and where there is no justifiable reason to lie?

That and the unreliable nature of the human brain.

If the degree thing turns out to be a willful hoax, that would do it.

Bouncing checks not so much. Hustling rent depends on whether the alternative is homelessness.

Honestly, it could be the most honest person in the world making her claim and given the circumstances I'd not really see it as all that likely to be true. At some point honesty has nothing to do with whether a memory is credible.

Bob001 · 22nd May 2020, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Yes, it is stated on their admission page. But it is not stated on their "Access Admissions Program" page.

Why do you think a college degree wouldn't be required? Law school admissions relies heavily on grades and LSAT scores. Here's their alternative:

Quote:

Though their potential for success may not be accurately reflected by traditional indicators such as standardized scores or undergraduate GPAs, Access Admission students have demonstrated grit, intellectual curiosity, and the ability to overcome substantial obstacles.

So they give applicants a break based on other accomplishments and circumstances. Why would you think they wouldn't be expected to finish college?

Suddenly · 22nd May 2020, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Except if she testified under oath that she "graduated" from or "had a degree" from Antioch, that would be a lie if it's not true. If she just said she "attended" Antioch, that would not be the same. Tell any employer that you "graduated" from college when you only attended a couple semesters, and it will be a problem.

This wasn't a job interview.

Quote:

And of course all this raises the question of whether she exaggerated her work experience, too. She apparently claimed to be a "legislative assistant" to Biden, which is a distinct job on Capitol Hill, rather than office help. What did she actually do to be designated an "expert" on domestic violence?

She did enough for the judge to not grant an objection from the defense.

theprestige · 22nd May 2020, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I never said you suggested the accusation was true, but you've been a big part of keeping the conversation alive. You've made many comments within the last two weeks regarding Reade including why her credibility is irrelevant.

Nobody is pushing the accuastion, but you're still putting day after day of effort into refuting it. Why?

Quote:

Nope. As long as there's a Trump campaign ad airing using Reade's allegations, it's a relevant topic. And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility. When more information is found relevant to that, it will be presented and discussed. Discuss Biden's 'gaffes' all you want; they're fair game. But that's not the same as 'senility' and you know that. But nice touch.

Nobody's defending her credibility. Why do you keep attacking it?

Dr. Keith · 22nd May 2020, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

The California bar exam is famously brutal.

Past that, most careers in law suck.

Probably a combination. Flunk the bar once or twice, fall into something else while planning to try again, see how miserable most of your former classmates who passed the bar feel, and consider it a bullet well dodged.

Not an unusual career path.

Not that Suddenly needs back up, but I second this post.

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Nobody is pushing the accuastion, but you're still putting day after day of effort into refuting it. Why?

Has it slipped your notice that others are presenting new information and I am mostly responding to it? Just as you do. But nice try.
As for 'why?", I already addressed that in my last post.

Quote:

Nobody's defending her credibility.

They may not be defending it, but there are plenty...including you...arguing that her credibility is irrelevant to the case. It's not.

Quote:

Why do you keep attacking it?

Why do you keep refuting the fact that credibility IS important in cases such as this? Despite the fact you've been quoted and cited evidence from multiple sources that it isvery important. Whether you think it should be is irrelevant. In reality, it is.

Using words like "attacking" is an obvious appeal to emotion. To 'attack' something is negative. I'm not attacking her credibility; I'm discussing it.

Bubba · 22nd May 2020, 04:34 PM

Who you gonna replace Biden with ?

Hillary ?

xjx388 · 22nd May 2020, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Has it slipped your notice that others are presenting new information and I am mostly responding to it? Just as you do. But nice try.
As for 'why?", I already addressed that in my last post.

They may not be defending it, but there are plenty...including you...arguing that her credibility is irrelevant to the case. It's not.

Why do you keep refuting the fact that credibility IS important in cases such as this? Despite the fact you've been quoted and cited evidence from multiple sources that it isvery important. Whether you think it should be is irrelevant. In reality, it is.

Using words like "attacking" is an obvious appeal to emotion. To 'attack' something is negative. I'm not attacking her credibility; I'm discussing it.

She did bad things X, Y and Z. Therefore, her credibility is in question. She has lied about A, B and C. Therefore, she is probably lying about rape allegations.

Believe Women...unless they have done bad thing and lied before.

Bubba · 22nd May 2020, 04:39 PM

I met a cab driver who said Joe Biden IS NOT SENILE !

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bubba

Who you gonna replace Biden with ?

Hillary ?

Depends on who runs in the 2024 election.

johnny karate · 22nd May 2020, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

She did bad things X, Y and Z. Therefore, her credibility is in question. She has lied about A, B and C. Therefore, she is probably lying about rape allegations.

Believe Women...unless they have done bad thing and lied before.

Why do think someone’s credibility isn’t relevant to the veracity of the claims they make?

Are you in the habit of believing proven liars in the absence of corroborating evidence?

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Why do think someone’s credibility isn’trelevant to the veracity of the claims they make?

Are you in the habit of believing proven liars in the absence of corroborating evidence?

I think the argument that credibility is irrelevant is intellectual dishonesty. In real life, people do take it into account, especially when there is no corroborating evidence. Those being most vocal and decrying it as character assassination and reputation smearing have certainly done it despite their protestations otherwise. They'd be fools not to.

Regnad Kcin · 22nd May 2020, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Bubba

Things they say when they have no clue they are getting their info from an extreme left wing echo chamber populated by idiotic corrupt dishonest political activists masquerading as journalists:

I know, right?

Let’s hope OAN wins all the Noble Prizes this year!

theprestige · 22nd May 2020, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I think the argument that credibility is irrelevant is intellectual dishonesty. In real life, people do take it into account, especially when there is no corroborating evidence. Those being most vocal and decrying it as character assassination and reputation smearing have certainly done it despite their protestations otherwise. They'd be fools not to.

Whether we believe Biden raped somebody should not depend on their credibility, but on the evidence they present to support their allegation.

Credibility is good for risk assessment. In job interviews, for example. Someone who isn't credible may not be a good employment risk for your business. It's totally useless for determining whether or not any specific thing they've said is actually a lie.

We're not trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Joe Biden could rape someone?" We're not even trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Tara Reade is lying?" We're trying to answer the question, "did Joe Biden rape Tara Reade?" And the answer to that has nothing to do with her credibility. It has everything to do with the evidence that supports her claim.

Why is it so important to go beyond "the claim has no evidence, therefore it's rejected"? Is anybody here trying to defend the claim on the grounds of Reade's credibility?

Who exactly are you even arguing against, with your credibility deep dive? What is the actual argument being made, that is refuted by your "she's not credible"?

Regnad Kcin · 22nd May 2020, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

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

Because all women (and their experiences) are the same!

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Whether we believe Biden raped somebody should not depend on their credibility, but on the evidence they present to support their allegation.

Credibility is good for risk assessment. In job interviews, for example. Someone who isn't credible may not be a good employment risk for your business. It's totally useless for determining whether or not any specific thing they've said is actually a lie.

We're not trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Joe Biden could rape someone?" We're not even trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Tara Reade is lying?" We're trying to answer the question, "did Joe Biden rape Tara Reade?" And the answer to that has nothing to do with her credibility. It has everything to do with the evidence that supports her claim.

Why is it so important to go beyond "the claim has no evidence, therefore it's rejected"? Is anybody here trying to defend the claim on the grounds of Reade's credibility?

Who exactly are you even arguing against, with your credibility deep dive? What is the actual argument being made, that is refuted by your "she's not credible"?

Around and around and around we go with the same questions and answers being repeated ad nauseam. If you don't understand or accept the points made by me and others over the last few weeks, you never will. Fine. But please, don't try and claim the high ground by trying to minimize your own part in keeping this topic alive.

theprestige · 22nd May 2020, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Around and around and around we go with the same questions and answers being repeated ad nauseam. If you don't understand or accept the points made by me and others over the last few weeks, you never will. Fine. But please, don't try and claim the high ground by trying to minimize your own part in keeping this topic alive.

I understand the points just fine. Reade isn't a very credible person. What I don't understand, and what I don't think you've actually explained in the past few weeks(!) is why you've spent the past few weeks establishing this. Was anybody here actually appealing to Reade's credibility?

And, once you first established it a few weeks ago, why spend the next few weeks going around and around re-establishing the same point over and over again?

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I understand the points just fine. Reade isn't a very credible person. What I don't understand, and what I don't think you've actually explained in the past few weeks(!) is why you've spent the past few weeks establishing this. Was anybody here actually appealing to Reade's credibility?

And, once you first established it a few weeks ago, why spend the next few weeks going around and around re-establishing the same point over and over again?

No matter what I say, you'll have a comeback and end up asking me the exact same thing.
Just give it a frigging rest, will ya?

theprestige · 22nd May 2020, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No matter what I say, you'll have a comeback and end up asking me the exact same thing.

Not really.

If you said, "Member X is insisting that Reade's accusation lacks evidence but has credibility, and that needs to be addressed," I'd say, "makes sense, carry on."

Quote:

Just give it a frigging rest, will ya?

If you won't explain to me why you shouldn't give it a rest, can you at least explain to me why I should? I mean, there are other aspects of Candidate Biden we could talk about instead, if you want to give the Reade thing a rest. The questions about Hunter Biden's reputation and credibility didn't go away just because Reade distracted us for a bit. Biden's gaffe machine didn't stop rolling product off the assembly line. If you don't want to talk about those things, we could take a look at the antics of people trying to audition for his Veep slot. Or we could keep talking about Reade. What do you think? Can we give the Reade thing a rest? Or is there important Reade material you still need to address?

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not really.

If you said, "Member X is insisting that Reade's accusation lacks evidence but has credibility, and that needs to be addressed," I'd say, "makes sense, carry on."

If you won't explain to me why you shouldn't give it a rest, can you at least explain to me why I should? I mean, there are other aspects of Candidate Biden we could talk about instead, if you want to give the Reade thing a rest. The questions about Hunter Biden's reputation and credibility didn't go away just because Reade distracted us for a bit. Biden's gaffe machine didn't stop rolling product off the assembly line. If you don't want to talk about those things, we could take a look at the antics of people trying to audition for his Veep slot. Or we could keep talking about Reade. What do you think? Can we give the Reade thing a rest? Or is there important Reade material you still need to address?

Give it a rest. Period. I have no more interest in playing your 'wear 'em down' game. You're like a kid who keeps asking "Why" every time his parents give him an answer.

theprestige · 22nd May 2020, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Give it a rest. Period. I have no more interest in playing your 'wear 'em down' game. You're like a kid who keeps asking "Why" every time his parents give him an answer.

Just gonna keep trying to wear us down about Reade's credibility? Even though none of us actually think it matters to the question?

Also, how is this "give it a rest" thing supposed to work, exactly? You get to keep bringing it up for discussion on a discussion board, but none of us are allowed to discuss it, because that would wear you down somehow? Have you considered just starting a blog, with comments disabled?

thaiboxerken · 22nd May 2020, 06:38 PM

I don't know why you are arguing with a person who is not really having a discussion in good faith. Trump supporters could care less if Tara Reade's accusations are sincere or not.

xjx388 · 22nd May 2020, 06:41 PM

Say what you will about DJT, but he wastes no time.

Stacyhs · 22nd May 2020, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I don't know why you are arguing with a person who is not really having a discussion in good faith. Trump supporters could care less if Tara Reade's accusations are sincere or not.

Who are you addressing this to?

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd May 2020, 06:44 PM

Well you can all move on now, Biden made a big gaff on a radio show for which he had to apologize.

RCP: Sen. Tim Scott Blasts Biden's "You Ain't Black" Gaffe "The Most Arrogant, Condescending Comment"

Now we can all discuss this for the next 30 pages.

Bubba · 22nd May 2020, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

I know, right?

Let’s hope OAN wins all the Noble Prizes this year!

How can we locate that study which found all MSM outlets are probably trustworthy around pharma issues even though they all have execs who also sit on the boards of Big Pharma Corporations.. What was the name of the people who made those findings anyway....anyone recall?

I will let ya know if I remember it

Cain · 22nd May 2020, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b537c1b683.jpg
Say what you will about DJT, but he wastes no time.

Yeah, DJT did a great job updating his campaign's website.

Biden's a gaffe machine, yet still hasn't told people to inject bleach.

22nd May 2020, 01:41 PM	#3725
TellyKNeasuss Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,655	Originally Posted by Bob001 It is stated on their admissions page. I suspect the Access option is for people who don't have great grades and test scores, not for people who didn't graduate from college. Why would they have any reason to do that? https://law.seattleu.edu/admission/p...n-requirements Yes, it is stated on their admission page. But it is not stated on their "Access Admissions Program" page.
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

22nd May 2020, 01:43 PM	#3727
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X Posts: 40,776	Originally Posted by theprestige "Joe Biden: Not half as bad as Donald Trump. Biden 2020!" 6.
	__________________ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set. "...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, ~~Trump~~ shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will "[shemp is] a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality." - Shakespeare

22nd May 2020, 01:44 PM	#3728
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,305	Originally Posted by Stacyhs And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility. And what is credibility predicated on, if not one's reputation?
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,305	__________________ Hello.

22nd May 2020, 01:59 PM	#3731
wasapi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 13,400	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not? If she had taken the exam even once and failed, wouldn't there be some record of that? Just curious.
	__________________ Julia

22nd May 2020, 03:13 PM	#3738
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 22,904	Originally Posted by Suddenly The California bar exam is famously brutal. Past that, most careers in law suck. Probably a combination. Flunk the bar once or twice, fall into something else while planning to try again, see how miserable most of your former classmates who passed the bar feel, and consider it a bullet well dodged. Not an unusual career path. Not that Suddenly needs back up, but I second this post.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

22nd May 2020, 01:28 PM	#3721
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,212	Originally Posted by theprestige 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. I never said you suggested the accusation was true, but you've been a big part of keeping the conversation alive. You've made many comments within the last two weeks regarding Reade including why her credibility is irrelevant. Quote: 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. Nope. As long as there's a Trump campaign ad airing using Reade's allegations, it's a relevant topic. And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility. When more information is found relevant to that, it will be presented and discussed. Discuss Biden's 'gaffes' all you want; they're fair game. But that's not the same as 'senility' and you know that. But nice touch.

22nd May 2020, 01:29 PM	#3722
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,119	I do like how the Times article refers to the credit hours required to graduate without saying anything about this being 20 years ago and whether anything has changed about that. Also the 45 hours of "prior learning" as if that and transfer credit are the same thing. Quote: As a student enrolled in AULA’s Bachelor’s Completion Program, you can transfer the credits you’ve already earned from an accredited institution. A maximum of 135 transfer units (calculated as quarter units) can be credited toward your BA degree at AULA. ... Units accepted for transfer count toward the 180 minimum required for the degree. If we want to play detective and ignore that the information is 20 years later, she could transfer in 135, so... Quote: She sent The Times a screenshot of a transcript showing her with 35 course credits, Math fans will note this leaves her short of the 180 needed. Which would lean towards "no degree." It is possible that in 2000 they were still on a semester system and that 35 is well enough to put her over the top (like if these numbers are the more classic 120/90 instead of 180/135). I don't know that, but then again I'm not writing for the NYT.

22nd May 2020, 01:29 PM	#3723
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,971	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss 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"). It is stated on their admissions page. I suspect the Access option is for people who don't have great grades and test scores, not for people who didn't graduate from college. Why would they have any reason to do that? Quote: As a candidate for admission, you must have earned a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university prior to your enrollment. https://law.seattleu.edu/admission/p...n-requirements Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss 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. She also would have been committing perjury in court, and accepting payment from the DA's office under false pretenses. This is a serious problem for her.

22nd May 2020, 01:34 PM	#3724
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,785	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?" Oh yeah like that's our fault. It doesn't have anything to do with people in the forum. They are just posting what they are reading and hearing.

22nd May 2020, 01:42 PM	#3726
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,212	Originally Posted by Suddenly I do like how the Times article refers to the credit hours required to graduate without saying anything about this being 20 years ago and whether anything has changed about that. Also the 45 hours of "prior learning" as if that and transfer credit are the same thing. If we want to play detective and ignore that the information is 20 years later, she could transfer in 135, so... Math fans will note this leaves her short of the 180 needed. Which would lean towards "no degree." It is possible that in 2000 they were still on a semester system and that 35 is well enough to put her over the top (like if these numbers are the more classic 120/90 instead of 180/135). I don't know that, but then again I'm not writing for the NYT. Their academic catalogue online only goes back to 2008-09. They were on the quarter system then. But this from Wikipedia states: Quote: From its inception, racial and gender equality, independent study, and independent thinking were integral parts of Antioch College. Six students were accepted for the first quarter: four men and two women who came to share the same college classrooms for the first time in the U.S I think it's safe to assume it was on the quarter system at the time Reade attended.

22nd May 2020, 01:54 PM	#3729
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,785	I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not?

22nd May 2020, 01:58 PM	#3730
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,119	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss 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. Probably not. She claimed a degree with a concentration in poly sci, which is consistent with the degree program she claims and which has nothing to do with the subject matter of her testimony. It is a biographical detail way more than it is a qualification as an expert. She was qualified based on work experience. All you need to be qualified as an expert witness is special knowledge that is helpful to the jury. You can be a convicted meth cook with a 10th grade education and be an expert about what items are suitable to use as part of an improvised lab. There is a published case about using a drug addict as an expert to establish the identity of a controlled substance (instead of a lab report). The way this is possibly useful to attack a conviction is as undisclosed exculpatory evidence that would have been useful to impeach a state witness. Pretty clear that being able to catch a witness lying on the stand would have had some effect at trial. It isn't that simple, but that is the general idea.

22nd May 2020, 02:12 PM	#3732
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,119	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not? The California bar exam is famously brutal. Past that, most careers in law suck. Probably a combination. Flunk the bar once or twice, fall into something else while planning to try again, see how miserable most of your former classmates who passed the bar feel, and consider it a bullet well dodged. Not an unusual career path.

22nd May 2020, 02:28 PM	#3733
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,971	Originally Posted by Suddenly Probably not. She claimed a degree with a concentration in poly sci, which is consistent with the degree program she claims and which has nothing to do with the subject matter of her testimony. It is a biographical detail way more than it is a qualification as an expert. She was qualified based on work experience. ..... Except if she testified under oath that she "graduated" from or "had a degree" from Antioch, that would be a lie if it's not true. If she just said she "attended" Antioch, that would not be the same. Tell any employer that you "graduated" from college when you only attended a couple semesters, and it will be a problem. And of course all this raises the question of whether she exaggerated her work experience, too. She apparently claimed to be a "legislative assistant" to Biden, which is a distinct job on Capitol Hill, rather than office help. What did she actually do to be designated an "expert" on domestic violence?

22nd May 2020, 02:32 PM	#3734
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,119	Originally Posted by xjx388 And what is credibility predicated on, if not one's reputation? One's reputation of credibility in matters of substantially equal weight and where there is no justifiable reason to lie? That and the unreliable nature of the human brain. If the degree thing turns out to be a willful hoax, that would do it. Bouncing checks not so much. Hustling rent depends on whether the alternative is homelessness. Honestly, it could be the most honest person in the world making her claim and given the circumstances I'd not really see it as all that likely to be true. At some point honesty has nothing to do with whether a memory is credible.

22nd May 2020, 02:35 PM	#3735
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,971	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss Yes, it is stated on their admission page. But it is not stated on their "Access Admissions Program" page. Why do you think a college degree wouldn't be required? Law school admissions relies heavily on grades and LSAT scores. Here's their alternative: Quote: Though their potential for success may not be accurately reflected by traditional indicators such as standardized scores or undergraduate GPAs, Access Admission students have demonstrated grit, intellectual curiosity, and the ability to overcome substantial obstacles. So they give applicants a break based on other accomplishments and circumstances. Why would you think they wouldn't be expected to finish college?

22nd May 2020, 02:57 PM	#3736
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,119	Originally Posted by Bob001 Except if she testified under oath that she "graduated" from or "had a degree" from Antioch, that would be a lie if it's not true. If she just said she "attended" Antioch, that would not be the same. Tell any employer that you "graduated" from college when you only attended a couple semesters, and it will be a problem. This wasn't a job interview. Quote: And of course all this raises the question of whether she exaggerated her work experience, too. She apparently claimed to be a "legislative assistant" to Biden, which is a distinct job on Capitol Hill, rather than office help. What did she actually do to be designated an "expert" on domestic violence? She did enough for the judge to not grant an objection from the defense.

22nd May 2020, 02:57 PM	#3737
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,565	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I never said you suggested the accusation was true, but you've been a big part of keeping the conversation alive. You've made many comments within the last two weeks regarding Reade including why her credibility is irrelevant. Nobody is pushing the accuastion, but you're still putting day after day of effort into refuting it. Why? Quote: Nope. As long as there's a Trump campaign ad airing using Reade's allegations, it's a relevant topic. And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility. When more information is found relevant to that, it will be presented and discussed. Discuss Biden's 'gaffes' all you want; they're fair game. But that's not the same as 'senility' and you know that. But nice touch. Nobody's defending her credibility. Why do you keep attacking it?

22nd May 2020, 03:29 PM	#3739
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,212	Originally Posted by theprestige Nobody is pushing the accuastion, but you're still putting day after day of effort into refuting it. Why? Has it slipped your notice that others are presenting new information and I am mostly responding to it? Just as you do. But nice try. As for 'why?", I already addressed that in my last post. Quote: Nobody's defending her credibility. They may not be defending it, but there are plenty...including you...arguing that her credibility is irrelevant to the case. It's not. Quote: Why do you keep attacking it? Why do you keep refuting the fact that credibility IS important in cases such as this? Despite the fact you've been quoted and cited evidence from multiple sources that it isvery important. Whether you think it should be is irrelevant. In reality, it is. Using words like "attacking" is an obvious appeal to emotion. To 'attack' something is negative. I'm not attacking her credibility; I'm discussing it.

22nd May 2020, 04:34 PM	#3740
Bubba Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 5,254	Who you gonna replace Biden with ? Hillary ?
Bubba Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 5,254

22nd May 2020, 04:36 PM	#3741
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,305	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Has it slipped your notice that others are presenting new information and I am mostly responding to it? Just as you do. But nice try. As for 'why?", I already addressed that in my last post. They may not be defending it, but there are plenty...including you...arguing that her credibility is irrelevant to the case. It's not. Why do you keep refuting the fact that credibility IS important in cases such as this? Despite the fact you've been quoted and cited evidence from multiple sources that it isvery important. Whether you think it should be is irrelevant. In reality, it is. Using words like "attacking" is an obvious appeal to emotion. To 'attack' something is negative. I'm not attacking her credibility; I'm discussing it. She did bad things X, Y and Z. Therefore, her credibility is in question. She has lied about A, B and C. Therefore, she is probably lying about rape allegations. Believe Women...unless they have done bad thing and lied before.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,305	__________________ Hello.

22nd May 2020, 04:39 PM	#3742
Bubba Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 5,254	I met a cab driver who said Joe Biden IS NOT SENILE !
Bubba Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 5,254

22nd May 2020, 04:42 PM	#3743
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,212	Originally Posted by Bubba Who you gonna replace Biden with ? Hillary ? Depends on who runs in the 2024 election.

22nd May 2020, 04:46 PM	#3744
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,652	Originally Posted by xjx388 She did bad things X, Y and Z. Therefore, her credibility is in question. She has lied about A, B and C. Therefore, she is probably lying about rape allegations. Believe Women...unless they have done bad thing and lied before. Why do think someone’s credibility isn’t relevant to the veracity of the claims they make? Are you in the habit of believing proven liars in the absence of corroborating evidence?
	Last edited by johnny karate; 22nd May 2020 at 05:01 PM.

22nd May 2020, 04:57 PM	#3745
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,212	Originally Posted by johnny karate Why do think someone’s credibility isn’trelevant to the veracity of the claims they make? Are you in the habit of believing proven liars in the absence of corroborating evidence? I think the argument that credibility is irrelevant is intellectual dishonesty. In real life, people do take it into account, especially when there is no corroborating evidence. Those being most vocal and decrying it as character assassination and reputation smearing have certainly done it despite their protestations otherwise. They'd be fools not to.

22nd May 2020, 05:10 PM	#3746
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,265	Originally Posted by Bubba Things they say when they have no clue they are getting their info from an extreme left wing echo chamber populated by idiotic corrupt dishonest political activists masquerading as journalists: I know, right? Let’s hope OAN wins all the Noble Prizes this year!
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

22nd May 2020, 05:14 PM	#3747
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,565	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I think the argument that credibility is irrelevant is intellectual dishonesty. In real life, people do take it into account, especially when there is no corroborating evidence. Those being most vocal and decrying it as character assassination and reputation smearing have certainly done it despite their protestations otherwise. They'd be fools not to. Whether we believe Biden raped somebody should not depend on their credibility, but on the evidence they present to support their allegation. Credibility is good for risk assessment. In job interviews, for example. Someone who isn't credible may not be a good employment risk for your business. It's totally useless for determining whether or not any specific thing they've said is actually a lie. We're not trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Joe Biden could rape someone?" We're not even trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Tara Reade is lying?" We're trying to answer the question, "did Joe Biden rape Tara Reade?" And the answer to that has nothing to do with her credibility. It has everything to do with the evidence that supports her claim. Why is it so important to go beyond "the claim has no evidence, therefore it's rejected"? Is anybody here trying to defend the claim on the grounds of Reade's credibility? Who exactly are you even arguing against, with your credibility deep dive? What is the actual argument being made, that is refuted by your "she's not credible"?

22nd May 2020, 05:24 PM	#3748
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,265	Originally Posted by xjx388 Let this be a lesson to any woman who dares accuse powerful men. Because all women (and their experiences) are the same!
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

22nd May 2020, 05:36 PM	#3749
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,212	Originally Posted by theprestige Whether we believe Biden raped somebody should not depend on their credibility, but on the evidence they present to support their allegation. Credibility is good for risk assessment. In job interviews, for example. Someone who isn't credible may not be a good employment risk for your business. It's totally useless for determining whether or not any specific thing they've said is actually a lie. We're not trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Joe Biden could rape someone?" We're not even trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Tara Reade is lying?" We're trying to answer the question, "did Joe Biden rape Tara Reade?" And the answer to that has nothing to do with her credibility. It has everything to do with the evidence that supports her claim. Why is it so important to go beyond "the claim has no evidence, therefore it's rejected"? Is anybody here trying to defend the claim on the grounds of Reade's credibility? Who exactly are you even arguing against, with your credibility deep dive? What is the actual argument being made, that is refuted by your "she's not credible"? Around and around and around we go with the same questions and answers being repeated ad nauseam. If you don't understand or accept the points made by me and others over the last few weeks, you never will. Fine. But please, don't try and claim the high ground by trying to minimize your own part in keeping this topic alive.

22nd May 2020, 05:53 PM	#3750
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,565	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Around and around and around we go with the same questions and answers being repeated ad nauseam. If you don't understand or accept the points made by me and others over the last few weeks, you never will. Fine. But please, don't try and claim the high ground by trying to minimize your own part in keeping this topic alive. I understand the points just fine. Reade isn't a very credible person. What I don't understand, and what I don't think you've actually explained in the past few weeks(!) is why you've spent the past few weeks establishing this. Was anybody here actually appealing to Reade's credibility? And, once you first established it a few weeks ago, why spend the next few weeks going around and around re-establishing the same point over and over again?

22nd May 2020, 06:02 PM	#3751
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,212	Originally Posted by theprestige I understand the points just fine. Reade isn't a very credible person. What I don't understand, and what I don't think you've actually explained in the past few weeks(!) is why you've spent the past few weeks establishing this. Was anybody here actually appealing to Reade's credibility? And, once you first established it a few weeks ago, why spend the next few weeks going around and around re-establishing the same point over and over again? No matter what I say, you'll have a comeback and end up asking me the exact same thing. Just give it a frigging rest, will ya?

22nd May 2020, 06:15 PM	#3752
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,565	Originally Posted by Stacyhs No matter what I say, you'll have a comeback and end up asking me the exact same thing. Not really. If you said, "Member X is insisting that Reade's accusation lacks evidence but has credibility, and that needs to be addressed," I'd say, "makes sense, carry on." Quote: Just give it a frigging rest, will ya? If you won't explain to me why you shouldn't give it a rest, can you at least explain to me why I should? I mean, there are other aspects of Candidate Biden we could talk about instead, if you want to give the Reade thing a rest. The questions about Hunter Biden's reputation and credibility didn't go away just because Reade distracted us for a bit. Biden's gaffe machine didn't stop rolling product off the assembly line. If you don't want to talk about those things, we could take a look at the antics of people trying to audition for his Veep slot. Or we could keep talking about Reade. What do you think? Can we give the Reade thing a rest? Or is there important Reade material you still need to address?
	Last edited by theprestige; 22nd May 2020 at 06:19 PM.

22nd May 2020, 06:21 PM	#3753
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,212	Originally Posted by theprestige Not really. If you said, "Member X is insisting that Reade's accusation lacks evidence but has credibility, and that needs to be addressed," I'd say, "makes sense, carry on." If you won't explain to me why you shouldn't give it a rest, can you at least explain to me why I should? I mean, there are other aspects of Candidate Biden we could talk about instead, if you want to give the Reade thing a rest. The questions about Hunter Biden's reputation and credibility didn't go away just because Reade distracted us for a bit. Biden's gaffe machine didn't stop rolling product off the assembly line. If you don't want to talk about those things, we could take a look at the antics of people trying to audition for his Veep slot. Or we could keep talking about Reade. What do you think? Can we give the Reade thing a rest? Or is there important Reade material you still need to address? Give it a rest. Period. I have no more interest in playing your 'wear 'em down' game. You're like a kid who keeps asking "Why" every time his parents give him an answer.

22nd May 2020, 06:31 PM	#3754
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,565	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Give it a rest. Period. I have no more interest in playing your 'wear 'em down' game. You're like a kid who keeps asking "Why" every time his parents give him an answer. Just gonna keep trying to wear us down about Reade's credibility? Even though none of us actually think it matters to the question? Also, how is this "give it a rest" thing supposed to work, exactly? You get to keep bringing it up for discussion on a discussion board, but none of us are allowed to discuss it, because that would wear you down somehow? Have you considered just starting a blog, with comments disabled?
	Last edited by theprestige; 22nd May 2020 at 06:33 PM.

22nd May 2020, 06:38 PM	#3755
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,717	I don't know why you are arguing with a person who is not really having a discussion in good faith. Trump supporters could care less if Tara Reade's accusations are sincere or not.
	__________________ 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.