The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

“The declaration — exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California — does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade’s more recent allegations of sexual assault.”


 
reade%20dec%20grab%20jpeg.JPG


 
knapplc said:
“The declaration — exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California — does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade’s more recent allegations of sexual assault.”
Click to expand...
Again, we know her story has changed. Reade herself has acknowledge it and discussed why in a couple of interviews now. Plus it's common for sexual assault victims to not tell the whole story.

However, this is now a court document showing that she told the story back in 1996, which puts to bed all the "she made this up after Biden was the likely nominee" and "her neighbor is lying/misremembering" arguments.

The Biden campaign and staff has said that NOTHING ever happened. And yet we have this document from 1996 where Reade said she left her position because of it, and the interns she was managing at the time confirmed she was suddenly reassigned and then left.

 
So, now we need him to take the test, on film, and tweet it out.  It needs to show that he passed.  So that he can stay the D's pick and I can win my cash.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlitzFirst said:
Jesus, these Biden apologists are worse than the narrative Bernie Bros!

I haven't seen conspiracy like this out of the Democrats....I guess we have the blue MAGA train running full steam!

All kidding aside, if the above is true, it makes me wonder what other types of smears have been made against her.
Click to expand...
People should rightfully have their guard up, One of her lawyers is a Trump donor (He also is very good in this line of work, so no issues with her choosing him to represent her), the other lawyer DID write and edit for a Russian propaganda company named Sputnik. There was bipartisan agreement that Russia was/is trying to interfere with our elections in favor of Trump. Of course a lot of people are going to be suspicious of this, everything is timed perfectly for Trump/Russia's interests. Of course it could be a coincidence as well.

 
I'm pulling this from the other thread where it was originally posted but it fits better here.

RedDenver said:
The idea that people will just vote for a candidate despite that candidate not aligning with that voter's political beliefs has always been a hollow argument.
Click to expand...
Sometimes pragmatism must come before principle.  In the case of this election, we must be pragmatic and vote the horror we see in the WH out of office at all costs. Being 'principled' at a time like this is a death nail to freedom and democracy as we know it.  I cannot imagine 4 more years of trumpism - both in the WH and in Congress.  The inability/inflexibility to being pragmatic in times like this is a betrayal of one's long term 'principled' goals.  One cannot push forward on any progressive ideas at all if trump is re-elected.   Do I think Biden is a great candidate now - no.  But if that is all the Dems put forward, he is the 'life boat' we will have to use to get away from the stinking, sinking ship of a Trump WH. 

Let me add this: If the allegations can be proven true, then the Dems should drop Biden in a heartbeat.  At this point I'm not sure how anything will be proven- he said, she said is where we are at.  Lie detector test - I doubt that will occur. Biden taking one won't happen.   

For justice sake, I hope the truth can be settled - one way or another before the Dem convention. 

Some questions I have regarding motive on 'both sides' of this issue:

Will the Anti-Biden crowd accept the truth if it reveals Biden's innocence? 

Will the Pro-Biden Dems select someone else at the convention if the truth/evidence casts enough doubt on Biden's story?

Are those who are pushing Tara's narrative more interested in justice for her than in defeating Biden? 

If I being a conservative, life long voter for GOP candidates for president, can put aside my principled conservative values to vote for Biden, Warren or anyone else the Dems could offer up(yes even Bernie), it isn't asking too much to ask those principled progressives to do the same if the accusations against Biden go no where.
 
teachercd said:
I had heard about this today!  

This is a smart move by her.  This is such a depantsing of Joey, he takes it and fails...BOOM.  He refuses to take and uh-oh, still guilty!

He pretty much has to take it now (but he won't and I don't blame him) to make this "go away".
Click to expand...
Polygraph tests have basically been proven to be unreliable.  This was a smart move for her because of what you said.  However, it really puts Biden in a no win situation.  Take an unreliable test that a lot of Americans think is more reliable than it is, or refuse.  

LINK


 


Significance & Practical Application



Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations.

The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems highly problematic.

For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.
Click to expand...


 
BigRedBuster said:
Polygraph tests have basically been proven to be unreliable.  This was a smart move for her because of what you said.  However, it really puts Biden in a no win situation.  Take an unreliable test that a lot of Americans think is more reliable than it is, or refuse.  

LINK


 
Click to expand...
Exactly...Shoot you can order the lie detector online and use it as a party gag.

But she hit a homerun with this move.

 
This is getting ridiculous.

Tara Reade’s New Lawyer Represented 6 Weinstein Victims

Douglas Wigdor, whose law firm represented several victims of Harvey Weinstein, told members of the press on Thursday that he now represents Tara Reade.
Click to expand...
Wigdor’s representation may alleviate liberal fears that Reade could be another Julie Swetnick, a Michael Avenatti client who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault only for her allegations to suffer under media scrutiny. Avenatti was convicted in February of trying to extort Nike. Before his jail sentence, his hunger for fame and willingness to advance clients like Swetnick, whose shaky story still fuels right-wing talking points, significantly undermined his credibility. It’s difficult to say the same of Wigdor.

Despite his previous support for Trump, Wigdor has a long career representing victims of sexual harassment and assault in high-profile cases. He prominently defended the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh hearings. He represented Nafissatou Diallo, a former Sofitel hotel maid, in her case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn in 2011, and later represented several victims of Harvey Weinstein.

He is also known for going after Fox News. His firm represented former Fox employee Juliet Huddy in a sexual-harassment case against Bill O’Reilly, and Lidia Curanaj, who sued Fox, alleging that she’d been passed over for a job because she rejected sexual advances from Roger Ailes. Wigdor also filed a defamation and racial discrimination suit against Fox on behalf of Rod Wheeler; Wheeler claimed the network “fabricated” quotes from him in order to falsely imply that a conspiracy might be involved in DNC staffer Seth Rich’s death, as the New York Times reported at the time. The suit was later dismissed. (Wigdor’s penchant for suing Fox might help explain why Reade will be interviewed by Megyn Kelly, who helped oust Ailes over his long history of sexual harassment. Wigdor also appeared on Kelly’s short-lived NBC show in 2017.)
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top