Clinton emails to be released before election

[Makeshift Python]

if you think of the GOP as all women-hating

[Captain Crimson]

if you think of the GOP as all women-hating

When there's a deep schism in society as wide as the divide in ours, you get ingrained into all these little strawmans of the other side.

Sure, many you see, like those with high visibility in the public eye and elected officials, are without a doubt that way. The GOP slides to being very traditional. But as I'd contended much earlier when I first joined the site, to say that, about sixty million people? Naw. I don't buy it. No more than sixty million liberals are all screaming for the cops to be abolished, as their strawman of your side would be.

Traditional doesn't mean sexist. Depends on the context, all broken down into a thousand thousand thousand interweaving patterns.

[TGLS]

I smell wishful thinking more than anything else. He isn't low enough in the polls to be fucked.

I dunno. Four years ago (Oct 12th 2016), 538's poll average put Trump 6.3pp behind Clinton. Gary Johnson was pegged at 6.8%. The average right before the election put Trump 3.9pp behind Clinton, and Johnson at 4.8%. In the end Trump was about 2.1pp behind Clinton. Johnson won 3.2% of the PV.

Right now, Trump is 10.4pp behind Biden. Jo Jorgenson isn't worth being mentioned. Apparently pollsters have taken steps to avoid overpolling white college graduates.

I'm no expert statistician. I don't know which states have changed or what. What I'm sure of is there is a number by which the Democrats can win the popular vote which makes the Republican's regional advantage meaningless. If I had to guess, it's about 5pp. Could there be an Late October/November surprise? Maybe. Could there be a 2pp bias? Maybe, but apparently it was fixed. Could people abandon a third party in droves? Not this year.

2016 was a closer election with more things that could break in a way that could help Trump. Like it or not, Trump is now saddled with his record. Because of recency, people are going to think about 2020 first. I feel this election is going to come down to whether the voters blame Trump or blame bad luck.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Al Franken and Joe Biden are two different situations. Al Franken had photographic evidence of his doings. Biden's is an allegation.

Believing Woman isn't supposed to be directed at official proceedings or anything, it's aimed mainly at the public who tend to automatically dismiss a woman's credibility. That doesn't mean every accusation is taken as literal fact.

Do they though? In order for innocent until proven guilty to function, you need to believe BOTH SIDES until you have reason otherwise. You need to look at it as 50% ''she was raped'' and 50% ''she is a liar.'' As time goes on, as evidence is presented, then the scales of justice begin to tip one way or the other until hopefully the ratio is 100-0.

Credibility does not automatically mean that you are innocent or guilty, but it is also a good starting metric of the probability of you being innocent or guilty. Look at Michael Jackson as an example. There is no hard proof against him of being a pedo at all, the police and FBI went to the extent of photographing his genitals and ripping his house apart and they still couldn't find anything concrete. And yet... he was also a man who owned a house with a kiddies' amusement park attached to it that he invited young boys over for sleepover parties. That is not evidence that he is a pedo on its own but it sure as f-k harmed his credibility as being a wholly innocent man and anyone else who did not have the fanbase of Jackson would be crucified by the world on that point alone. Be honest: if he had turned out to be guilty, and someone beforehand had told you that he holds sleepover parties, would you have actually been all that surprised?

In order for innocent until guilty to function you need to minimize assumptions. Public opinion is nothing but assumptions. It's the evidence of the case that matters, and that's not conducted by public opinion.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That seems like a disproportionate response to my post.

I like to be articulate as I can be.

Alright, but I'm really asking this stuff in good faith and I'm not finding a cohesive shot through this kind of thing where you almost vaguely start to resemble a response but then just go on to like 5-7 different tangents from there.

There is not a comparable basis for Al Franken and Biden.

Forgive me if I ramble, but as I've said before, I am no higher-educated type Ivy League grad or prestige level scholar. I'm just a working man.

What I see is there really is no fundamental difference. My takeaway is that party politics takes priority over their message, as well as advancing a gain they had been building up to for three years, and nothing will get in the way of that goal. In that sense, MeToo, as I have said before, feels like political fodder in their war on Mr. 45. All layer, no substance.

Come on, do you believe for a second if Mr. Biden wasn't running as the literal only alternative to Mr. 45, there wouldn't be massive calls for him to be exiled ala Mr. Al Franken was? Maybe it shows the DNC caves in when they should hold their ground.

I don't find it persuasive to hold the progressive establishment liable solely on an audit of their own charter. Progressives aren't Democrats because of a competency exam, it's because the overall directive that's at odds with the other party is predominantly the direction we should take the country. Auditing their own charter alone as a means of gauging a race seems pretty dismissive.

Al Franken wasn't pressured. When you stand up on a podium and soberly take responsibility for your actions and declare under your own free will that you will step down in accordance with the principles that you adopt as a progressive, then it is not a precedence of justice when he stepped down amid photography of him grabbing a woman's breasts for a case that possibly has no basis of even being accounted. They are not comparable.

[Captain Crimson]

That seems like a disproportionate response to my post.

I like to be articulate as I can be.

Alright, but I'm really asking this stuff in good faith and I'm not finding a cohesive shot through this kind of thing where you almost vaguely start to resemble a response but then just go on to like 5-7 different tangents from there.

There is not a comparable basis for Al Franken and Biden.

Forgive me if I ramble, but as I've said before, I am no higher-educated type Ivy League grad or prestige level scholar. I'm just a working man.

What I see is there really is no fundamental difference. My takeaway is that party politics takes priority over their message, as well as advancing a gain they had been building up to for three years, and nothing will get in the way of that goal. In that sense, MeToo, as I have said before, feels like political fodder in their war on Mr. 45. All layer, no substance.

Come on, do you believe for a second if Mr. Biden wasn't running as the literal only alternative to Mr. 45, there wouldn't be massive calls for him to be exiled ala Mr. Al Franken was? Maybe it shows the DNC caves in when they should hold their ground.

I don't find it persuasive to hold the progressive establishment liable solely on an audit of their own charter. Progressives aren't Democrats because of a competency exam, it's because the overall directive that's at odds with the other party is predominantly the direction we should take the country. Auditing their own charter alone as a means of gauging a race seems pretty dismissive.

Al Franken wasn't pressured. When you stand up on a podium and soberly take responsibility for your actions and declare under your own free will that you will step down in accordance with the principles that you adopt as a progressive, then it is not a precedence of justice when he stepped down amid photography of him grabbing a woman's breasts for a case that possibly has no basis of even being accounted. They are not comparable.

There is also every possibility this holds more weight than you'd like to think. Ms. Reade has had a history of lies? Well, geez, what a shock, I mean, Lord forbid a liar could have had this happen to her! Somebody alert the press! Has no one ever heard the fable about the boy crying wolf? I just think it is due to the schisms in our society, that depending on your alignment off the center, that you are more inclined to believe whoever says this, whether it's against a leftist or a righty, like Mr. Kavanaugh was jumped on. When in truth, this is such a personally emotional crime, you can't expect rationality like other criminal cases, nor can you rely on memory, which makes it one of the trickier crimes to try to curb, and whether to accept what you see at face value if you have a position of influence or high visibility.

I tend to side more like clearspira. Whenever an allegation is made on this, society should be of two mindsets. One is, despite the downplay certain elements of society and even victims themselves have for the incident, you really don't want to think someone was that badly hurt. The second, however, is that memory is a tricky thing, as I'd said, so it could have been something radically different than how it actually went down. We just don't know. We need to at least consider it could be possible anytime this is brought up, challenge our viewpoints, and the problem is too many people are not comfortable challenging their viewpoints. We also generally want to believe the best in people but sadly, they are going to disappoint you.

Since this runs the risk of going in circles around one another, I will end on this, that my largest point of contention is the DNC would be foolish hypocrites to credit MeToo from now on, as would all these leftist celebrities who have hopped aboard the bandwagon defending Mr. Biden. That was what I had asserted all along. Since trust me, the same talking points were used that the GOP employs. It should concern you Mr. 45 emphasized with Mr. Biden on this issue.

[Draco Dracul]

I'm not clear on how the DNC is particularly at odds with MeToo or how there is some friction impeding either's development.

They have been some of the biggest MeToo bandwagon jumpers. I mean, look at how they kicked out Mr. Al Franken, and yet, Mr. Biden gets a pass? Why? You have to conclude there is literally no other factor at play than it is a critical election year, and they've become just as hyperpolarized as the rest of us. A lot of MeToo feminists in Hollywood also leapt to Mr. Biden's defense, and so... what you got is a big, bright red signal hitting the same marks as the classic GOP dismissal of these allegations, and for almost the same reasons, which has a danger in sending victims back into silence, which hey, this was supposed to be meant to challenge, right? Since the DNC who were insisting "you have to believe women!" are now the ones backtracking it in their political discourse. How can anyone continue using MeToo as a hashtag in the future when the DNC heard what they said, and so clearly ignored it? How can they even pretend to proceed with what they've done? All they do is come off as GOP Lite, which, hey, they are.

Al Franken and Joe Biden are two different situations. Al Franken had photographic evidence of his doings. Biden's is an allegation.

Believing Woman isn't supposed to be directed at official proceedings or anything, it's aimed mainly at the public who tend to automatically dismiss a woman's credibility. That doesn't mean every accusation is taken as literal fact.

Indeed. The accusations where allowed to the public and then found to be full of inconsistencies, continual shifts, and her own credibility dropped when it turned out that she had in fact repeatedly lied under oath about her credentials.

[Captain Crimson]

I'm not clear on how the DNC is particularly at odds with MeToo or how there is some friction impeding either's development.

They have been some of the biggest MeToo bandwagon jumpers. I mean, look at how they kicked out Mr. Al Franken, and yet, Mr. Biden gets a pass? Why? You have to conclude there is literally no other factor at play than it is a critical election year, and they've become just as hyperpolarized as the rest of us. A lot of MeToo feminists in Hollywood also leapt to Mr. Biden's defense, and so... what you got is a big, bright red signal hitting the same marks as the classic GOP dismissal of these allegations, and for almost the same reasons, which has a danger in sending victims back into silence, which hey, this was supposed to be meant to challenge, right? Since the DNC who were insisting "you have to believe women!" are now the ones backtracking it in their political discourse. How can anyone continue using MeToo as a hashtag in the future when the DNC heard what they said, and so clearly ignored it? How can they even pretend to proceed with what they've done? All they do is come off as GOP Lite, which, hey, they are.

Al Franken and Joe Biden are two different situations. Al Franken had photographic evidence of his doings. Biden's is an allegation.

Believing Woman isn't supposed to be directed at official proceedings or anything, it's aimed mainly at the public who tend to automatically dismiss a woman's credibility. That doesn't mean every accusation is taken as literal fact.

Indeed. The accusations where allowed to the public and then found to be full of inconsistencies, continual shifts, and her own credibility dropped when it turned out that she had in fact repeatedly lied under oath about her credentials.

And does that still disprove it, let me ask you?

1) This is the argument many feminists have made to how they get away with it. Consistencies and continuity? Memory is fallible, and you should not expect people to be rational, much less with such a personal crime. Not that it definitively proves Mr. Biden guilty, it just doesn't destroy her "credibility" as much as you think.

2) Yeah, because there's no way a liar could actually be right about what had happened to them, yes? I'm not saying "believe liars!" or something like that, but I'd already cited an example above. The boy who cried wolf.

[Draco Dracul]

I'm not clear on how the DNC is particularly at odds with MeToo or how there is some friction impeding either's development.

They have been some of the biggest MeToo bandwagon jumpers. I mean, look at how they kicked out Mr. Al Franken, and yet, Mr. Biden gets a pass? Why? You have to conclude there is literally no other factor at play than it is a critical election year, and they've become just as hyperpolarized as the rest of us. A lot of MeToo feminists in Hollywood also leapt to Mr. Biden's defense, and so... what you got is a big, bright red signal hitting the same marks as the classic GOP dismissal of these allegations, and for almost the same reasons, which has a danger in sending victims back into silence, which hey, this was supposed to be meant to challenge, right? Since the DNC who were insisting "you have to believe women!" are now the ones backtracking it in their political discourse. How can anyone continue using MeToo as a hashtag in the future when the DNC heard what they said, and so clearly ignored it? How can they even pretend to proceed with what they've done? All they do is come off as GOP Lite, which, hey, they are.

Al Franken and Joe Biden are two different situations. Al Franken had photographic evidence of his doings. Biden's is an allegation.

Believing Woman isn't supposed to be directed at official proceedings or anything, it's aimed mainly at the public who tend to automatically dismiss a woman's credibility. That doesn't mean every accusation is taken as literal fact.

Indeed. The accusations where allowed to the public and then found to be full of inconsistencies, continual shifts, and her own credibility dropped when it turned out that she had in fact repeatedly lied under oath about her credentials.

And does that still disprove it, let me ask you?

1) This is the argument many feminists have made to how they get away with it. Consistencies and continuity? Memory is fallible, and you should not expect people to be rational, much less with such a personal crime. Not that it definitively proves Mr. Biden guilty, it just doesn't destroy her "credibility" as much as you think.

2) Yeah, because there's no way a liar could actually be right about what had happened to them, yes? I'm not saying "believe liars!" or something like that, but I'd already cited an example above. The boy who cried wolf.

1) It's not just that the story had inconsistencies it's that it became more and more lurid over time going from a very plausible atmosphere of harrassment to a headline catching tale of being fingered in a public space.

2)Someone with a history of lying ought not to be trusted lest they have proof beyond their own word. On rare occasion this will mean that injustice is allowed to stand, but society crumbles when a known liar is given the same benefit of the doubt as a random person. And this isn't just someone caught fibbing from time to time, but someone now being investigated for over a dozen cases of perjury.

[Captain Crimson]

I'm not clear on how the DNC is particularly at odds with MeToo or how there is some friction impeding either's development.

They have been some of the biggest MeToo bandwagon jumpers. I mean, look at how they kicked out Mr. Al Franken, and yet, Mr. Biden gets a pass? Why? You have to conclude there is literally no other factor at play than it is a critical election year, and they've become just as hyperpolarized as the rest of us. A lot of MeToo feminists in Hollywood also leapt to Mr. Biden's defense, and so... what you got is a big, bright red signal hitting the same marks as the classic GOP dismissal of these allegations, and for almost the same reasons, which has a danger in sending victims back into silence, which hey, this was supposed to be meant to challenge, right? Since the DNC who were insisting "you have to believe women!" are now the ones backtracking it in their political discourse. How can anyone continue using MeToo as a hashtag in the future when the DNC heard what they said, and so clearly ignored it? How can they even pretend to proceed with what they've done? All they do is come off as GOP Lite, which, hey, they are.

Al Franken and Joe Biden are two different situations. Al Franken had photographic evidence of his doings. Biden's is an allegation.

Believing Woman isn't supposed to be directed at official proceedings or anything, it's aimed mainly at the public who tend to automatically dismiss a woman's credibility. That doesn't mean every accusation is taken as literal fact.

Indeed. The accusations where allowed to the public and then found to be full of inconsistencies, continual shifts, and her own credibility dropped when it turned out that she had in fact repeatedly lied under oath about her credentials.

And does that still disprove it, let me ask you?

1) This is the argument many feminists have made to how they get away with it. Consistencies and continuity? Memory is fallible, and you should not expect people to be rational, much less with such a personal crime. Not that it definitively proves Mr. Biden guilty, it just doesn't destroy her "credibility" as much as you think.

2) Yeah, because there's no way a liar could actually be right about what had happened to them, yes? I'm not saying "believe liars!" or something like that, but I'd already cited an example above. The boy who cried wolf.

1) It's not just that the story had inconsistencies it's that it became more and more lurid over time going from a very plausible atmosphere of harrassment to a headline catching tale of being fingered in a public space.

2)Someone with a history of lying ought not to be trusted lest they have proof beyond their own word. On rare occasion this will mean that injustice is allowed to stand, but society crumbles when a known liar is given the same benefit of the doubt as a random person. And this isn't just someone caught fibbing from time to time, but someone now being investigated for over a dozen cases of perjury.

And you still don't think it could be possible?

That right there shows why MeToo is never going to work, if "believe women!" defaults to murmurs of "well, it's just the way we're trying to challenge society..." and then casually toss it aside. Frankly, I hope MeToo loses credibility after this point, but we've already diverged far off track.

And I have no interest in pursuing this.