GeneralMacArthur's big Tara Reade article

[7,052,770]

If you want this to go viral, you need to reply to every Biden, NYT, WP, AP, NPR, CNN, etc., tweet as soon as they Tweet it so that it gets some views. The algorithm will push it down but just giving people the chance to see it and start sharing it. Eventually the algorithm will stop pushing it down if enough people pass it on.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Thank you for giving it a title with the exact appropriate level of click-baityness. It's just enough to get people to click on it thinking it'll be shaming the media for defending Biden only to be hit with the BOOM of a MacArthurian onslaught.

Haha that was exactly the idea

[GeneralMacArthur]

If you want this to go viral, you need to reply to every Biden, NYT, WP, AP, NPR, CNN, etc., tweet as soon as they Tweet it so that it gets some views. The algorithm will push it down but just giving people the chance to see it and start sharing it. Eventually the algorithm will stop pushing it down if enough people pass it on.

Unfortunately it looks like Twitter is hiding the tweets from the new account I made to promote it.  Maybe I got marked as a spammer or something.  I don't want to send it out from my real account for obvious reasons.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Blue check alert

https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1256768091213705217

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

If you want this to go viral, you need to reply to every Biden, NYT, WP, AP, NPR, CNN, etc., tweet as soon as they Tweet it so that it gets some views. The algorithm will push it down but just giving people the chance to see it and start sharing it. Eventually the algorithm will stop pushing it down if enough people pass it on.

Unfortunately it looks like Twitter is hiding the tweets from the new account I made to promote it.  Maybe I got marked as a spammer or something.  I don't want to send it out from my real account for obvious reasons.

FWIW, deboosting seems to trigger if you reply to too many accounts at once. Try making original tweets gassing up Biden or something or moving part of your campaign to DMs.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Blue check alert

https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1256768091213705217

Otter from Animal House apparently gave your article a signal boost too. Wild stuff, really.

[7,052,770]

Blue check alert

https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1256768091213705217

No idea who she is, but she has over 100,000 followers.

[7,052,770]

Otter from Animal House apparently gave your article a signal boost too. Wild stuff, really.

He really did:
https://twitter.com/Tim_Matheson

(Also VP Hoynes on The West Wing FWIW)

[Bidenworth2020]

2 blue checks, not bad!

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Damn. You're about to enter the blue checkmark viral Twittersphere under a pseudonym. Great work either way.

[riceowl]

Retweeted by someone I follow, and I don’t follow many!

[Dr. Arch]

Great job, GMA.

[CookieDamage]

King sh*t! I'm assuming that's not your real pic in the article lmao

[BlueSwan]

I've been wanting you to write this article for weeks now, so thank you very much!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This is a great piece of journalism. Thank you for writing (and sharing) it.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Blue check alert

https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1256768091213705217

No idea who she is, but she has over 100,000 followers.

She's a conservative former-Republican strategist, pundit and journalist. She worked as a GOP-political operative for over 30 years.

She was one of the first #NeverTrump Republicans back in 2015. She is now an independent and supports Biden's campaign.

[pppolitics]

Disgraceful work that will deserve remembering if anything comes of this.

He is just merely going over Reade's past and present behavior, which reveals a pattern of lies and deception.

[Adam Griffin]

Disgraceful work that will deserve remembering if anything comes of this.

He is just merely going over Reade's past and present behavior, which reveals a pattern of lies and deception.

What some (or many) in slightly different scenarios might call "character assassination".


At any rate, I hope this means we won't be forced to suffer through eight-paragraph diatribes on the matter every other hour here on Atlas? Will recommend if so.

[pppolitics]

Disgraceful work that will deserve remembering if anything comes of this.

He is just merely going over Reade's past and present behavior, which reveals a pattern of lies and deception.

What some (or many) in slightly different scenarios might call "character assassination".


At any rate, I hope this means we won't be forced to suffer through eight-paragraph diatribes on the matter every other hour here on Atlas? Will recommend if so.

No.

In court, this is call "establishing character" and Reade's character is that of a compulsive liar.

[Adam Griffin]

Disgraceful work that will deserve remembering if anything comes of this.

He is just merely going over Reade's past and present behavior, which reveals a pattern of lies and deception.

What some (or many) in slightly different scenarios might call "character assassination".


At any rate, I hope this means we won't be forced to suffer through eight-paragraph diatribes on the matter every other hour here on Atlas? Will recommend if so.

No.

In court, this is call "establishing character" and Reade's character is that of a compulsive liar.

Except this isn't court - and even if it were, half of the items mentioned have nothing to do with the specific claims in question. Saying things like "she must have had a grudge!" and "she's not a real Democrat" to discredit a sexual abuse claim is structurally no different than commenting on a woman's attire and saying that she was asking for it, or even posting prior photos of her attire to insinuate she was "loose" ("building character"!).

[pppolitics]

Disgraceful work that will deserve remembering if anything comes of this.

He is just merely going over Reade's past and present behavior, which reveals a pattern of lies and deception.

What some (or many) in slightly different scenarios might call "character assassination".


At any rate, I hope this means we won't be forced to suffer through eight-paragraph diatribes on the matter every other hour here on Atlas? Will recommend if so.

No.

In court, this is call "establishing character" and Reade's character is that of a compulsive liar.

Except this isn't court - and even if it were, half of the items mentioned have nothing to do with the specific claims in question. Saying things like "she must have had a grudge!" and "she's not a real Democrat" to discredit a sexual abuse claim is structurally no different than commenting on a woman's attire and saying that she was asking for it, or even posting prior photos of her attire to insinuate she was "loose" ("building character"!).

Part of that is "establishing intent".

[7,052,770]

Disgraceful work that will deserve remembering if anything comes of this.

Fair enough, but I think we all know that nothing is going to. The story is pretty clearly on the downswing at this point.

[GeneralMacArthur]

First, you establish that there's no evidence the event happened.  At this point, a court of law would throw out the case.

Second, you establish that the accuser can not be trusted on faith alone.  At this point, the court of public opinion (which likes to decide "he-said-she-said" cases based on credibility alone) should throw out the case.

Finally, if the allegation is false, why did she complain?  You establish an alternative motive.  Reade makes that easy.  Once that's done, nobody should have any doubt what the real story is here.

[Bidenworth2020]

Another blue check!

https://twitter.com/AwardsDaily

[Calthrina950]

I think a lot of Biden supporters make the same error that this article makes, asking for all this evidence and putting her statements and past under a microscope.

Biden is not under trial in court. He's not facing time in jail or a criminal record. He's not facing civil penalties. We're not looking for proof beyond reasonable doubt. We're not even looking for preponderance of evidence. People just need a sense that he might've done it. Not that it's more likely that he did than not ... just a sense that he might've done it. That's all.

For example, the article is asking for a specific time, date, location so that we could get video footage. Ordinary people don't remember specific time, date, location for stuff that happened in 1993. And exact time, date, location isn't necessary, as this isn't a court case trying to prove guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Then the article spends a lot of time talking about small details. So she started off saying Biden rubbed her shoulders and neck in 2019. Then in 2020, she brings up sexual assault. In 2009, she said she left with her boyfriend, then in 2019, she said said she left to protest something. She claimed Washington Post ignored her when they interviewed her. She said she complained to 2 supervisors before saying 3. etc etc

Those small details are splitting hairs when this isn't a court case. Maybe in court, a prosecutor can cast reasonable doubt and clear Biden. But this isn't a court case. Even if reasonable doubt is there, people can still believe that he might've done it.

Just keep it simple (no 5,000-word article needed):

1). She's a woman who did work for Biden.

2). She claims that he sexually assaulted her in 1992-1993.

3). Most women don't make traumatic sexual assault claims unless they are telling the truth, so she assumes some credibility by default (not irrefutable credibility, but some).

4). If the incident occurred and she waited 27 years before mentioning the incident, then she has some hesitations / misgivings / fears about going public.

5). Those hesitations / misgivings / fears means she might not easily tell the whole story at first, which explains why her statements in 2020 might differ from her statements in 2009.

6). The CNN phone call from her mother is evidence that something happened in 1992-1993 while she worked with Biden. The phone call doesn't prove that sexual assault happened, but it is evidence that something happened. Combined with her statement, it is enough to support a belief that he might've done something to her. It doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but that's not the standard we need here. He's not under trial in court.

Where is Trump’s DNA sample for EJ Carroll’s dress?

And this is exactly why I say Tara Reade's allegation will have no impact whatsoever on the election, beyond reinforcing the partisan convictions of Trump and Biden supporters. Trump's supporters believe that E. Jean Carroll is a liar and that she is "crazy"; Biden's supporters, conversely, believe the same about Tara Reade. I don't care how much evidence you throw at a Trump supporter that Trump sexually assaulted or harassed a woman (or multiple women); they will discount it. And I don't care if you drop a mountain load of evidence about Joe Biden; Democrats (and people on here), will discount it.

It's interesting that General MacArthur felt himself moved to write an entire article about this allegation (which I have doubts about myself), but if I were to post one of the many rebuttal articles that have been written about Blasey Ford, or the report written by that Republican defense counsel (Rachel Mitchell) after the hearings, it would be discredited as a heap of junk.

Anyhow, the point that I'm trying to make is that "Believe Women" or "Believe All Women" was a flawed rallying cry, and many are now seeing why it should not be held as the gold standard in assessing sexual assault/harassment claims.