|
Post by evileeyore on May 5, 2020 20:57:03 GMT
Because society STILL doesn't believe women when they say they were assaulted. You act as though the #metoo 'nonsense' never occurred. As though several men weren't castigated in society for the last few years over nothing more than accusations. And? There is now the portion of society that claim all men need to be "taught how not to rape", as though rape is so prevalent every woman must be walking around in constant fear at all times from ever male around them, when this is patently not the case. Both of these segments of society are equally stupid. Wrong, try again. Your standard "don't believe" portion actually believe her and it's the #metoo crowd who have disavowed her. Try explaining that... (I know why, it's because the accusation is against Biden, who can do no wrong as per Liberal dogma.)
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on May 5, 2020 21:19:20 GMT
Because society STILL doesn't believe women when they say they were assaulted. You act as though the #metoo 'nonsense' never occurred. As though several men weren't castigated in society for the last few years over nothing more than accusations. And? There is now the portion of society that claim all men need to be "taught how not to rape", as though rape is so prevalent every woman must be walking around in constant fear at all times from ever male around them, when this is patently not the case. Both of these segments of society are equally stupid. Wrong, try again. Your standard "don't believe" portion actually believe her and it's the #metoo crowd who have disavowed her. Try explaining that... (I know why, it's because the accusation is against Biden, who can do no wrong as per Liberal dogma.) Even since the #metoo movement, society still ignores most women when they say they were assaulted. Most women who come out when it is significantly later (and that's going to happen, it may not be good now, it was much worse years and decades ago) are not believed. Whether they told other people at the time who corroborate that they said it happened. I don't know that the #metoo crowd is disavowing her. I know a lot of liberal women who won't vote for Biden because they DO believe Tara Reade. And men, for that matter. Especially those who have been assaulted themselves. All men don't need to be taught how not to rape, many do need to learn that no matter when it's uttered, no means no. And that permission for one thing isn't necessarily permission for everything else you want to do.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 5, 2020 22:28:10 GMT
I know I'm none too thrilled with Biden. I may go third party this time because Trump is absolutely the worse choice between the two. Biden though has his drawbacks.
I guess I'm lucky. All the men I personally know are gentlemen.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 5, 2020 23:32:09 GMT
Your standard "don't believe" portion actually believe her and it's the #metoo crowd who have disavowed her. Try explaining that... That one is easy. Politics.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 5, 2020 23:38:14 GMT
I know I'm none too thrilled with Biden. I may go third party this time because Trump is absolutely the worse choice between the two. Biden though has his drawbacks.
I guess I'm lucky. All the men I personally know are gentlemen.
Third party gets you the most bang for your vote. You get.... 1) 1 vote for the third party candidate. 2) 1 vote for Trump, because all the Democrats think a vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump. 3) 1 vote for Biden, because the Republicans think a vote for anyone other than Trump is a vote for Biden. 3 votes for the price of 1!
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 6, 2020 0:28:01 GMT
Lol. I guess I'm a realist then above all else, because I firmly believe all politicians are scum.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 6, 2020 2:07:30 GMT
I don't know that the #metoo crowd is disavowing her. Pretty much the majority of the #metoo media and celeb thought leaders have stated outright that "Reade must be lying because Biden wouldn't do that"†. Rose McGowan is one of the lone outliers sticking to her #metoo creds and turning against Biden. Granted she won't vote Trump either. † Or outright saying "It doesn't matter if Biden is a [rapist/raped me/raped my daughter] I'd still vote Biden". Which is really sketchy as fuck.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 6, 2020 2:54:12 GMT
I haven't seen a Bayesian analysis run on the Biden situation yet - dozens of such analyses were offered regarding Kavanaugh, none of which, IIRC, suggested more than a 50% chance of innocence for the judge. And while you can adjust the sliders on your priors to your taste, even those that were arguing a fortiori for Kavanaugh's innocence didn't look good. This is... a painfully bad thing to read. It's garbage dressed in Bayes' clothes and paraded around so the easily gullible can applaud. Statistics is a model based on assumptions, and, if you manipulate those assumptions, you get an answer. There is no statistics without assumptions, and no assumptions without manipulation. Statistics has no ability to discern truth -- this is always the realm of reason. Statistics can be a tool to help you find a place to look, but it has infinite capacity to fool you if you take your eye off the ball. Anyone trying to sell you stats, even Bayesian stats, to show the truth of an event is lying to you, at best by accident, at worst because they've marked you for a fool, but usually because the liar is also a fool. I'm an engineer. In a communications field. Statistical analysis is the backbone of communications. But it's not how it works, or the truth, it's a model that makes predictions, and those predictions are pretty good -- good enough for cellular networks and 4/5G comms. This, though, is the only value statistics has -- does the model create useful predictions about the future? If your stats don't do this, and do it well, they're garbage. And any analysis like what you posted above doesn't even bother with a verifiable prediction. It's worse than garbage -- it's a confused fool lying to another confused fool. Break the cycle, don't be a fool.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 6, 2020 2:59:51 GMT
The accusation is sexual assault. Digital penetration. There's no harrassment claim, here, it jumped straight to assault. And, one time incidents can be harrassment, if severe enough. Usually, it is a pattern, but this is not a requirement in all cases. There's no hard evidence of Sexual Assault. She might be able to prove harassment, though, if there's enough evidence to support it. This is stupid. The accusation is that he digitally penetrated her. There may be no 'hard' evidence of this, but there's also no accusation of sexual harassment, which is a different thing altogether from sexual assault. You do not downgrade to sexual harassment when there's not enough evidence to convict on sexual assault -- it's not like manslaughter vs murder one. Fucking asinine arguments around here. First statistical buggery and then confusing sexual harassment for the easier to prove lighter cousin of sexual assault. I mean, jesus christ, do you think that a DA would go to a rape victim and say, "sorry, but the DNA at the lab got corrupted, so we've lost our strongest evidence for the rape. We still have enough for sexual harassment, though, so that's a win, right?"
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 6, 2020 21:41:35 GMT
There's no hard evidence of Sexual Assault. She might be able to prove harassment, though, if there's enough evidence to support it. This is stupid. The accusation is that he digitally penetrated her. There may be no 'hard' evidence of this, but there's also no accusation of sexual harassment, which is a different thing altogether from sexual assault. You do not downgrade to sexual harassment when there's not enough evidence to convict on sexual assault -- it's not like manslaughter vs murder one. Fucking asinine arguments around here. First statistical buggery and then confusing sexual harassment for the easier to prove lighter cousin of sexual assault. I mean, jesus christ, do you think that a DA would go to a rape victim and say, "sorry, but the DNA at the lab got corrupted, so we've lost our strongest evidence for the rape. We still have enough for sexual harassment, though, so that's a win, right?" Cool story. I was talking about if she decided to try and claim harassment, though. I'm sure the statute has run, but the court of public opinion might be persuaded if she has actual evidence that she was harassed by Biden,
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 7, 2020 12:14:33 GMT
This is stupid. The accusation is that he digitally penetrated her. There may be no 'hard' evidence of this, but there's also no accusation of sexual harassment, which is a different thing altogether from sexual assault. You do not downgrade to sexual harassment when there's not enough evidence to convict on sexual assault -- it's not like manslaughter vs murder one. Fucking asinine arguments around here. First statistical buggery and then confusing sexual harassment for the easier to prove lighter cousin of sexual assault. I mean, jesus christ, do you think that a DA would go to a rape victim and say, "sorry, but the DNA at the lab got corrupted, so we've lost our strongest evidence for the rape. We still have enough for sexual harassment, though, so that's a win, right?" Cool story. I was talking about if she decided to try and claim harassment, though. I'm sure the statute has run, but the court of public opinion might be persuaded if she has actual evidence that she was harassed by Biden, Oh, you were just saying that if a different accusation was made that maybe different considerations of evidence might apply. Thank you for this wisdom. You've opened my eyes to a world of imaginary accusations and the possible evidentiary states thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 7, 2020 15:24:37 GMT
Cool story. I was talking about if she decided to try and claim harassment, though. I'm sure the statute has run, but the court of public opinion might be persuaded if she has actual evidence that she was harassed by Biden, Oh, you were just saying that if a different accusation was made that maybe different considerations of evidence might apply. Thank you for this wisdom. You've opened my eyes to a world of imaginary accusations and the possible evidentiary states thereof.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 8, 2020 14:46:36 GMT
Somehow, I find this suspicious. news.yahoo.com/prominent-lawyer-trump-donor-representing-010351404.htmlWASHINGTON (AP) — Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer who alleged Joe Biden sexually assaulted her 27 years ago, is being represented by a prominent lawyer and political donor to President Donald Trump’s 2016 Republican campaign. Attorney Douglas Wigdor told The Associated Press he was not currently being paid for his work with Reade. His firm also denied there was a political motivation for his decision to represent Reade in her accusations against Trump’s presumptive Democratic opponent in the November election. “We have decided to take this matter on because every survivor has the right to competent counsel,” the firm said in a statement. Reade has said for weeks that she was struggling to find a lawyer willing to represent her. She’s accused Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993, when she worked on his Senate staff. He has denied her allegation. On Thursday, Reade said she wanted Biden to be “held accountable” and called on him to drop out of the presidential race. Her comments came in her first on-camera interview, conducted by former Fox News and NBC News journalist Megyn Kelly. Pressed by a Florida television station about Reade’s comment, Biden reiterated his denial of the allegation. “The truth is what matters,” he told Bay News 9. “In this case, the truth is these claims are flat-out false.” Wigdor is well known for his work on prominent cases related to sexual harassment and assault. He represented six women who accused Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood producer, of sexual misconduct. He has also represented a number of Fox News employees in cases alleging gender and racial discrimination at the network, including Juliette Huddy, one of the women who accused Bill O'Reilly of pursuing a sexual relationship with her and retaliating when she refused. In 2018, he spoke out in the media defending Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Wigdor has been a supporter of Trump and provided about $55,000 in campaign contributions in 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records. He has also given tens of thousands of dollars to state and local Democratic politicians in New York, including New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and New York Attorney General Letitia James. He has not donated to either Trump’s or Biden’s 2020 campaign. Wigdor said he plans to help Reade in her dealings with the media and any independent investigations into her allegations that might occur. He said the two have not discussed bringing a lawsuit based on her claims, but he did not rule that out. Wigdor suggested Reade's earlier struggles to find a lawyer to represent her were the result of “politics.” “I think highly of a lot of these people,” he said. “These are my friends and colleagues, people who I respect, but they tend to be Democrats or liberals, and they were not interested, because of that, in representing Tara Reade.” Over the weekend, another attorney, William Moran, told the AP he was working with Reade. Moran, who works at a law firm in Columbia, Maryland, previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya. A January 2017 report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign said Sputnik was part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine,” which “contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.” Reade herself has faced questions about her past writing praising Russian President Vladimir Putin. Reade on Thursday expressed concern to Kelly about having been “called a Russian agent” and said she had received a death threat from someone who “thought I was being a traitor to America.” There is no evidence to suggest Reade or Moran worked at the behest of Russia with respect to the Biden allegation. Moran contacted the AP on behalf of Reade to complain about and seek changes in a story detailing what Reade says she remembers writing in a Senate complaint about Biden. Reade told the AP she did not allege sexual assault in the complaint and did not explicitly use the words “sexual harassment,” though that is the behavior she believes she was describing. Moran told the AP in a text message Thursday that he found the focus on his past work “disgraceful.” He said Reade requested that he reach out to the AP “on a limited matter.” “I do not turn away clients who I believe and who have credible causes of action. I never will,” he said. Wigdor said Reade told him she was connected to Moran through Katie Halper, a podcaster who first interviewed Reade about her sexual assault allegation against Biden in March. It’s unclear how Reade connected with Wigdor, who said he believed she found the firm through “word of mouth and our reputation.” Reade first spoke out about her alleged interactions with Biden in 2019, telling journalists he had touched her inappropriately while she worked on his Senate staff. She came forward in 2020, around the time Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee, with new allegations of assault. She says she didn’t initially disclose the assault allegations because she was scared of backlash and was still coming to terms with what had happened to her.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 9, 2020 0:06:55 GMT
Somehow, I find this suspicious. news.yahoo.com/prominent-lawyer-trump-donor-representing-010351404.htmlWASHINGTON (AP) — Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer who alleged Joe Biden sexually assaulted her 27 years ago, is being represented by a prominent lawyer and political donor to President Donald Trump’s 2016 Republican campaign. Attorney Douglas Wigdor told The Associated Press he was not currently being paid for his work with Reade. His firm also denied there was a political motivation for his decision to represent Reade in her accusations against Trump’s presumptive Democratic opponent in the November election. “We have decided to take this matter on because every survivor has the right to competent counsel,” the firm said in a statement. Reade has said for weeks that she was struggling to find a lawyer willing to represent her. She’s accused Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993, when she worked on his Senate staff. He has denied her allegation. On Thursday, Reade said she wanted Biden to be “held accountable” and called on him to drop out of the presidential race. Her comments came in her first on-camera interview, conducted by former Fox News and NBC News journalist Megyn Kelly. Pressed by a Florida television station about Reade’s comment, Biden reiterated his denial of the allegation. “The truth is what matters,” he told Bay News 9. “In this case, the truth is these claims are flat-out false.” Wigdor is well known for his work on prominent cases related to sexual harassment and assault. He represented six women who accused Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood producer, of sexual misconduct. He has also represented a number of Fox News employees in cases alleging gender and racial discrimination at the network, including Juliette Huddy, one of the women who accused Bill O'Reilly of pursuing a sexual relationship with her and retaliating when she refused. In 2018, he spoke out in the media defending Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Wigdor has been a supporter of Trump and provided about $55,000 in campaign contributions in 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records. He has also given tens of thousands of dollars to state and local Democratic politicians in New York, including New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and New York Attorney General Letitia James. He has not donated to either Trump’s or Biden’s 2020 campaign. Wigdor said he plans to help Reade in her dealings with the media and any independent investigations into her allegations that might occur. He said the two have not discussed bringing a lawsuit based on her claims, but he did not rule that out. Wigdor suggested Reade's earlier struggles to find a lawyer to represent her were the result of “politics.” “I think highly of a lot of these people,” he said. “These are my friends and colleagues, people who I respect, but they tend to be Democrats or liberals, and they were not interested, because of that, in representing Tara Reade.” Over the weekend, another attorney, William Moran, told the AP he was working with Reade. Moran, who works at a law firm in Columbia, Maryland, previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya. A January 2017 report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign said Sputnik was part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine,” which “contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.” Reade herself has faced questions about her past writing praising Russian President Vladimir Putin. Reade on Thursday expressed concern to Kelly about having been “called a Russian agent” and said she had received a death threat from someone who “thought I was being a traitor to America.” There is no evidence to suggest Reade or Moran worked at the behest of Russia with respect to the Biden allegation. Moran contacted the AP on behalf of Reade to complain about and seek changes in a story detailing what Reade says she remembers writing in a Senate complaint about Biden. Reade told the AP she did not allege sexual assault in the complaint and did not explicitly use the words “sexual harassment,” though that is the behavior she believes she was describing. Moran told the AP in a text message Thursday that he found the focus on his past work “disgraceful.” He said Reade requested that he reach out to the AP “on a limited matter.” “I do not turn away clients who I believe and who have credible causes of action. I never will,” he said. Wigdor said Reade told him she was connected to Moran through Katie Halper, a podcaster who first interviewed Reade about her sexual assault allegation against Biden in March. It’s unclear how Reade connected with Wigdor, who said he believed she found the firm through “word of mouth and our reputation.” Reade first spoke out about her alleged interactions with Biden in 2019, telling journalists he had touched her inappropriately while she worked on his Senate staff. She came forward in 2020, around the time Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee, with new allegations of assault. She says she didn’t initially disclose the assault allegations because she was scared of backlash and was still coming to terms with what had happened to her. Dear god, you're easily led. The article frames the lawyer, who well known for taking a number of sexual harassment cases including against the hated FOX, as a Trump donor, because he donated money to Trump. He donated more to Democrats, but nope, that's where you stopped listening. Further, they threw in a completely unrelated bit about Russia, and that's enough for you. This is fishy now because someone's a Russian operative being helped by a Trump supporter who has something to do with FOX. BAD! BAD! BAD! Fucking moron.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 9, 2020 1:21:24 GMT
Dear god, you're easily led. To be fair, she didn't say what she found suspicious. It could very well have been the news.yahoo.com part. I know that's where I tuned out. Accurate.
|
|