• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Tara Reade is a person who exists

... slander against Biden.

This is a rational website devoted to rational discourse and argumentation. Can you PROVE this is slander?

So far I fell for a lot of the slander against Tara Reade and I feel bad for it.

That SLANDER came from Biden bros. Those were lies about her. They said she was a Russian agent. I didn't completely believe it but I started to. They said she was on the Doctor Phil show saying she was Putin's girlfriend. I was skeptical at first. But then they claimed they compared voices and it was exactly the same. They LIED. That's actual SLANDER. Slander has a meaning:
"...the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."

Therefore, in order for this to be SLANDER, the claim has to be false. To PROVE your claim, you have to show it's false. Not unknown. Not unsubstantiated. But actually really false.

Now, in order to do the interview, Halper also confirmed with a friend of Reade's and Reade's brother that the event at the time was mentioned to them. They said yes. That makes it sound TRUE, not false. Not proven to be true, but likely true. Of course, when Salon followed up at the time, they could not get a hold of Reade's brother to confirm. That doesn't make it FALSE though from Salon's perspective, but instead unsubstantiated to them. So, from Halper's perspective, they substantiated the claim as much as possible. From Salon's perspective, Salon did not substantiate it.

None of this means it's false.

You have a really, really big burden to show here.
 
Can you PROVE that Biden committed anything he's accused of?

NO and I didn't say he is a proven rapist either.

You have a big burden to prove she's a liar.

Koy said:
Irony. Big fan.

It's not irony. You said Biden was being slandered. Logically, this means the claim is false.

Demonstrate it logically with proof.
 
Can you PROVE that Biden committed anything he's accused of?

NO and I didn't say he is a proven rapist either.

You have a big burden to prove she's a liar.

I have no such burden. Biden is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, remember?

Don2 said:
You said Biden was being slandered.

Actually, I said "No one trusts Bernie Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden."

Logically, this means the claim is false.

See above regarding innocent until proven guilty and then re-read what I actually said.
 
I have no such burden.

Yes you do. You said someone is lying. Not that you didn't know if they were lying. You said they were slandering.

Koy said:
Biden is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, remember?

Yes, of course. I agree 100%. Tara Reade is also innocent of slander until proven guilty. Are you willing to prove your point or just avoid backing it up?

Koy said:
Don2 said:
You said Biden was being slandered.

Actually, I said "No one trusts Bernie Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden."

Yes, that's what you wrote. Therefore, the logical inference is that Tara Reade is slandering Biden. So where's your proof?

Koy said:
Logically, this means the claim is false.

See above regarding innocent until proven guilty and then re-read what I actually said.

See above where what you wrote is also applicable to Tara Reade. If you call someone a liar, you should prove proof of it. Otherwise, you should say you don't know if they are telling the truth or lying.

See...for me, like I wrote above. I feel bad because earlier I thought she was lying. Now, I am unsure. I believed Biden bros when they slandered her...or at least their propaganda smears pushed my view that she was likely lying further toward an extreme that she was definitely lying. Now I am not so sure because those Biden bros tricked me.

BUT if you are going to say she is slandering Biden, then you are going to have to back it up. Maybe you should have written something else that did not include the word slander. Maybe you should have used a different word like "recklessness." As it stands "unconfirmed … slander" is an oxymoron and "No one trusts Biden Bros …" is hyperbole.

Might as well write:
No one trusts Biden Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Tara Reade.

That would also be hyperbole and an oxymoron.
 
Yes you do.

:rolleyes:

No, I do not.

You said someone is lying.

No, I did not. Read it again. I'll bold the part you seem to keep missing:

No one trusts Biden Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden.

Clear?

Don2 said:
Koy said:
Don2 said:
You said Biden was being slandered.

Actually, I said "No one trusts Bernie Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden."

Yes, that's what you wrote. Therefore, the logical inference is that Tara Reade is slandering Biden.

:facepalm: Wrong. Read it again and then take a remedial course in logic and language.

Here, I'll break it further down for you. I don't know whether or not Reade's claim is true or false. What I do know, however, is that I don't trust Bernie Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden. It's an indictment of Sanders supporters. It has nothing to do with whether or not Reade's claim is true or false or anything to do with Biden, who is innocent until proven guilty.

Perfectly clear now?

I believed Biden bros when they slandered her...or at least their propaganda smears pushed my view that she was likely lying further toward an extreme that she was definitely lying.

So, you might say, "No one trusts Biden bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Sanders."

Now I am not so sure because those Biden bros tricked me.

And, out of sheer morbid curiosity, who, exactly, are these "Biden bros"? Can you link to any one specific individual that you know to be a Biden supporter that has made the claim that Reade is a Russian agent and how you know they are Biden supporters and not themselves Russian agents, for example?

ETA: And, just for the record, if anyone did make such a claim, it likewise would not be slander if it turned out that she actually was a Russian agent--though that takes us into the realm of what is an "agent" and what is an "asset," and if it was voluntary or simply expedient, etc.--and that STILL would not have any bearing on whether or not Biden did what she accuses him of doing to her. She could turn out to be Putin in a dress and Biden might still have tried to sexually assault her.

See how it's important to carefully parse all of this shit?
 
Last edited:
No one trusts Biden Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Tara Reade.
 
:rolleyes:

No, I do not.

Yes you do.

Koy said:
No, I did not. Read it again. I'll bold the part you seem to keep missing:

No one trusts Biden Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden.

Clear?

No, your excuses for not providing proof are very thin.

"No one trusts X to not do Y."

Rational observer: okay, prove they've done Y.

Speaker: Uhm..no, I just said no one trusts them. I can't actually provide any kind of proof they did Y. In fact, I don't want to bring this back to the thread op which is about the person claiming things pertinent to Y. I only want to make accusations about X without any kind of substantiation and argue semantics over it.

Rational observer: Dude, either provide proof of Y or just stop posting. This is a rational website.

Koy said:
Don2 said:
Koy said:
Don2 said:
You said Biden was being slandered.

Actually, I said "No one trusts Bernie Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden."

Yes, that's what you wrote. Therefore, the logical inference is that Tara Reade is slandering Biden.

:facepalm: Wrong. Read it again and then take a remedial course in logic and language.

Really, now you are resorting to insults and I am willing to get nasty too. Thanks for bringing is both down 2 notches.

Koy said:
Here, I'll break it further down for you. I don't know whether or not Reade's claim is true or false. What I do know, however, is that I don't trust Bernie Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden. It's an indictment of Sanders supporters.

It's not an indictment. It's an unsubstantiated insult. To be an indictment you need to provide proof.

You have failed to do so.

Koy said:
It has nothing to do with whether or not Reade's claim is true or false or anything to do with Biden, who is innocent until proven guilty.

Perfectly clear now?

It's perfectly clear that you are willing to attack people for standing up for principles that Biden and Clinton claimed to have. "Women should be believed?" Bullshit.

Clintonite Democrats and Biden bros were fine with talking about unsubstantiated allegations against Trump and Kavanaugh...things not proven in a court of law. Suddenly, Biden is on the defensive and it's "She was on the doctor Phil show." "SHE'S INSANE."

Koy said:
I believed Biden bros when they slandered her...or at least their propaganda smears pushed my view that she was likely lying further toward an extreme that she was definitely lying.

So, you might say, "No one trusts Biden bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Sanders."

Now I am not so sure because those Biden bros tricked me.

And, out of sheer morbid curiosity, who, exactly, are these "Biden bros"? Can you link to any one specific individual that you know to be a Biden supporter that has made the claim that Reade is a Russian agent?

ETA: And, just for the record, if anyone did make such a claim, it likewise would not be slander if it turned out that she actually was a Russian agent--though that takes us into the realm of what is an "agent" and what is an "asset," and if it was voluntary or simply expedient, etc.--and that STILL would not have any bearing on whether or not Biden did what she accuses him of doing to her. She could turn out to be Putin in a dress and Biden might still have tried to sexually assault her.

See how it's important to carefully parse all of this shit?

You aren't carefully doing anything. You are just insulting a group of people of which this thread isn't even about. You CLAIM you don't know if she's telling the truth or not, but you are 100% okay with shooting the messengers which as a logical consequence makes Biden look innocent. BUT what if she's telling the truth, then what's the impact of what you're doing?

It's TERRIBLE!
 
"For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real" -- Joe Biden
 
"For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real" -- Joe Biden

Mind-reader, but your version didn't have the full quote nor the lovely visage of the cryptkeeper himself
 
No one trusts Biden Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Tara Reade.

There you go. Congratulations. It took you awhile, but you finally got there.

Yes now I am willing to engage in hyperbole, oxymorons, and unsubstantiated nastiness. Thank you for helping me to see the light.

I am no longer taking any malarkey!
 
"No one trusts X to not do Y."

Rational observer: okay, prove they've done Y.

Prove that no one trusts Bernie Bros to be above disseminating unconfirmed, politically expedient slander against Biden? This from NBC news, Sanders apologizes to Biden for supporter's attack:

Sen. Bernie Sanders apologized Monday night for an op-ed written by a campaign supporter that argued former Vice President Joe Biden “has a big corruption problem.”

In an interview in Iowa with CBS News, Sanders said “it is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way. And I'm sorry that that op-ed appeared."

Biden quickly accepted Sanders' apology, writing in a tweet, "Thanks for acknowledging this, Bernie. These kinds of attacks have no place in this primary. Let’s all keep our focus on making Donald Trump a one-term president."

Sanders' vocal speechwriter David Sirota shared the op-ed, written by associate Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout, to an email list of supporters Monday morning. The email highlighted that “In one passage, she asks ‘When he pushed for cuts to Social Security, was he (Biden) serving donors or his constituents?’”

The op-ed was the latest in an ongoing clash between Sanders and the former vice president over Social Security, but was another example of Sanders’ supporters and staff taking a more aggressive tone than the candidate himself.


This from Vox, The raging controversy over “Bernie Bros” and the so-called dirtbag left, explained:

It seemed natural to many that when Sen. Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the presidential race, she would endorse her longtime ally for Bernie Sanders for president. Yet she didn’t — and one reason, judging by her Thursday exit interview with Rachel Maddow, is anger at the way Bernie’s online supporters have behaved.

“I think there’s a real problem with online bullying and online nastiness. I’m not just talking about who said mean things; I’m talking about some really ugly stuff that went on,” she said.

The behavior in question ranges from angry Sanders fans tweeting snake emojis at Warren accusing her of being an anti-Sanders backstabber to online harassment of (generally female) Warren supporters. There have also been accusations that possible Sanders supporters published the home addresses and phone numbers of two women who worked for the Nevada Culinary Union after it produced a fact sheet critical of Sanders’s health care plan.

When Maddow asked if “it’s a particular problem with Sanders supporters,” Warren replied bluntly: “It is. And it just is. It’s just a factual question.”

Warren’s frustrations cut to the heart of a debate that’s been raging throughout the Democratic primary, but has come to a head since Biden supplanted Sanders as the race’s frontrunner on Super Tuesday. Observers have started assigning blame for the Vermont senator’s fall from grace — and one purported culprit, though certainly not the only one, are the antics of the “Bernie Bros.”

But the media’s obsessive focus on Bernie Bros — a term coined in 2016 to describe privileged white male Sanders supporters that doesn’t accurately describe his 2020 base — has obscured the real nature of the problem: a particular subculture among some Sanders fans that flourishes primarily on Twitter.

This group has coalesced around a loose group of left-wing media outlets that call themselves the dirtbag left, most notably the podcast Chapo Trap House. The dirtbag left promotes vulgar online attacks as a means of promoting left-wing politics, often through crass jokes in podcast episodes and on Twitter. (A recent Chapo episode involved hosts joking that Warren would have pretended to be Arab to join with the Flight 93 9/11 hijackers, making a crass sexual comment about Warren-sympathetic New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg, and a proffering a jokey, false theory that “Big Vaccine” and/or Bill Gates made up the coronavirus.)
...
Despite the Bernie Bro stereotype’s obvious deficiency, the term hasn’t gone away. Here’s a Google Trends chart of search interest in “Bernie Bro” over the course of five years, showing that interest has really picked up recently in the 2020 race:
...
This peak in interest has largely coincided with Sanders becoming first the frontrunner and then, shortly thereafter, the only serious remaining challenger to a surging Joe Biden. In January, the New York Times ran a lengthy piece on anger inside the Democratic Party over the behavior of those believed to back Sanders. A few examples:

Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter.​
...
To understand how this works, it’s worth watching the entirety of Warren’s interview with Maddow on the subject. She starts off by talking about her long friendship with Sanders, how much respect she has for him. And then she pivots to an emotional discussion of online harassment; you can hear that it’s clearly shaped her perception of the race...In the interview, it’s clear that Sanders’s disavowals of online harassment ring a little hollow in Warren’s ears. Given that the candidate and his staff have appeared on Chapo, you can understand her thinking. It might seem like Sanders is speaking out of both sides of his mouth: vaguely disavowing online anger in public statements while his campaign reaches out and appeals directly to the people purveying it.
...
The dirtbag left sees the race in such starkly moral terms — either you support Bernie or you want poor people to get sick and die — that they’re willing to countenance abusive tactics in order to get people on board. They don’t understand how anyone could disagree with Sanders in good faith, or how treating someone viciously might be counterproductive to the cause they profess to care about.

And there's this from Vanity Fair, highlighting as well as the above Vox piece the political expediency element, “WE’RE ABOUT TO WALK OFF A CLIFF”: THE PRO-BERNIE MEDIA MAKES ITS LAST STAND AGAINST BIDEN. Snippet:

Biederman believes Chapo will probably go harder on Biden now; cohost Will Menaker, for one, has been pounding Biden’s record in the Senate, along with suggesting the candidate is ”senile.”
...
Biden has largely received good press of late. His big night last week was preceded by a torrent of favorable coverage, with outlets heralding a “comeback” storyline after his landslide win in South Carolina and endorsements from Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Beto O’Rourke. Between his victory in the first Southern primary and the end of Super Tuesday, Biden was the beneficiary of almost $72 million in earned, or free, national media coverage, much of it positive. The tenor has been very different among Sanders’ extremely online supporters. Walker Bragman, a progressive journalist, compiled a highlight reel earlier this month showcasing Biden’s lapses on the campaign trail that went viral on Twitter. “As a journalist, my goal is to facilitate an important conversation that is not being had on cable news or in legacy outlets in any substantive way,” Bragman said. But Cenk Uygur lamented what he called a “Biden protection racket” in the mainstream media that has insulated the candidate from the intense scrutiny that typifies coverage in the left-most corners of digital media. Uygur, a former MSNBC host who boasts more than 460,000 Twitter followers, has repeatedly pushed the cognitive decline charge. “We’re still David, television is still Goliath, and the internet is our slingshot,” Uygur said. “It’s a hell of a slingshot. But it would be great if we had a better playing field.”
...
On the heels of Super Tuesday, Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity suggested Biden’s cognition had diminished. “Biden is struggling,” Hannity said. “If he had a fastball, it’s gone. If he had a slow pitch, that’s gone too, and his confusing and bumbling speeches, increasing numbers of gaffes and public outbursts are beyond troublesome.” The pro-Trump hosts’ line of attack has echoed the president at rallies and on Twitter.

None of these critics, of course, are trained medical professionals who have examined the former vice president. And the Biden campaign has shown little tolerance for the allegations, whether leveled from the left or right—along with media outlets covering them. “It’s shameful that journalists from the left are parroting the same unfounded and disgusting smears that Donald Trump and his supporters peddle everyday online,” Biden national press secretary T.J. Ducklo said in a statement.

There's much more, of course, but that should be sufficient.
 
Last edited:
Yes now I am willing to engage in hyperbole

Yes.

oxymorons

Que?

and unsubstantiated nastiness.

You mean like:

Mind-reader, but your version didn't have the full quote nor the lovely visage of the cryptkeeper himself

And pretty much every post from Pyramidhead?

I am no longer taking any malarkey!

No, just dishing it out.

ETA: Speaking of "hyperbole, oxymorons and unsubstantiated nastiness" from Pyramidhead (different thread):

You call can try to make the point that there is some moral dimension to voting for one of these corrupt, dementia-addled, imperialist, corporate funded, conservative rapists over the other, but with each passing day you reveal yourselves to have no interest in morally scrutinizing your political leaders, as long as they fulfill the aesthetic and cultural requirements for the role and create the appearance of being competent shift managers of the Starbucks that is your idea of this country. You're giving up on the last vestige of anything you kind of believe in, scraping the barrel of your soul for some residue of principles or decency, but finding only the tut-tutting condescension of telling dying people they shouldn't be able to live if they can't afford it.

Or this from you in another thread:

and in consideration of his imperial policies, he's no friend of peace. If you compare Trump versus Biden on these big issues that have to do with actual lives being lost in millions, Trump is actually toning imperialism down but terrible on the environment and Biden would want to increase imperialism but be good for the environment (not good enough to save millions though). So, where again is the rational metric to say how close or far apart they are?
 
Evidence Casts Doubt on Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegations of Joe Biden

Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable once the story is fully investigated.

Pretty thorough article.

"How dare they question a woman's lived experience?"
Isn't that what we keep hearing when a woman claims a SCOTUS nominee raped her 30 years ago when he was 17, or that the president raped her in a Barney's changing room or simply that some lacrosse players at Duke raped her during a party? Why is this so different that we do not hear "women don't lie about rape" and "women should always be believed" by radical feminists?
 
Evidence Casts Doubt on Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegations of Joe Biden

Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable once the story is fully investigated.

Pretty thorough article.

"How dare they question a woman's lived experience?"
Isn't that what we keep hearing when a woman claims a SCOTUS nominee raped her 30 years ago when he was 17, or that the president raped her in a Barney's changing room or simply that some lacrosse players at Duke raped her during a party? Why is this so different that we do not hear "women don't lie about rape" and "women should always be believed" by radical feminists?
The point is to believe (instead of an automatic dismissal response of the rape apologists) and investigate. In other words, take the accusation seriously enough to investigate.

How hard is that really to understand?
 
Back
Top Bottom