Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden

[Don Johnson 4,753]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I have found myself agreeing less and less with Bill Maher (which is fine I still like his show), and I have no idea where he'll go with this one, but I usually agree with him that its not hypocritical to believe one story and not believe another, because facts and circumstances are different and they matter. There are a million things about their lives that separate Biden from Kavanaugh. So yes, I believe that Kavanaugh most likely was an over-privileged shithead in college and probably groped or raped Ford. No, I don't think it's likely that Biden fingerbanged  a staffer as a member of the United States Senate. 

It's what you want to believe.  So much so that you believe Kavanaugh raped Ford...something Ford didn't even accuse him of.  But no way Biden did something that perfectly fits his reputation of making women feel extremely uncomfortable.

['stache 21,802]

Just now, Don Johnson said:

It's what you want to believe.  So much so that you believe Kavanaugh raped Ford...something Ford didn't even accuse him of.  But no way Biden did something that perfectly fits his reputation of making women feel extremely uncomfortable.

I said it pretty directly. Uncomfortably touching the neck and shoulders? Yeah, that's believable and within what we know of him. Fingerbang her in the halls of the US Senate? Not believable. And that's just on the surface. 

[DDD Dad 14,334]

2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

It's what you want to believe.  So much so that you believe Kavanaugh raped Ford...something Ford didn't even accuse him of.  But no way Biden did something that perfectly fits his reputation of making women feel extremely uncomfortable.

So where does that leave us?  There are two candidates nominated (presumptively) by each major party for President.  Both deny the accusations against them, one can debate the credibility of the accusations, but let's assume for the moment they are both guilty.  If neither steps down, what do you do?  If one steps down, then what?

[tantric superman 4,667]

4 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

It's what you want to believe.  So much so that you believe Kavanaugh raped Ford...something Ford didn't even accuse him of.  But no way Biden did something that perfectly fits his reputation of making women feel extremely uncomfortable.

I'd put finger banging and pussy grabbing just a smidgen up from say, slowly going in for an unwanted hug.

['stache 21,802]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

So where does that leave us?  There are two candidates nominated (presumptively) by each major party for President.  Both deny the accusations against them, one can debate the credibility of the accusations, but let's assume for the moment they are both guilty.  If neither steps down, what do you do?  If one steps down, then what?

This too. If you believe all the allegations (dozens agaisnt trump one against Biden) sometimes the gap between the lesser of two evils is big enough that voting for the lesser is still required.

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It says he went to a party with his friends, right?

I believe Blasey-Ford, but the calendar is only proof in an ethical/moral sense.

This is fucking stupid. Why would those 21 staffers have any knowledge of it?

Why not just say 99.9999999999% of the world's entire population had heard of it?

You don't? Think about it.

Again, this is fucking stupid.

All you liberals throwing shit at Reade? This is your ally. This is the rape culture you're actively participating in right now.

Congratulations.

Help me out. 

Edit - nm just saw your follow up post

Edited May 1, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[F250 28,767]

Democrats should have nominated Elizabeth Warren.

"Nah, let's nominate a 100 year old Creepy Sleepy Joe."

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I should add for the record that I don't think Kavanaugh should have been denied the Supreme Court seat based on the Ford allegations. He should have been denied the seat for being an unstable piece of shit and his record of predetermined decisions that follow a purely political agenda.

Shoulda been denied for blatantly lying to congress about boofing and devil's triangles. And very probably other stuff. 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

'stache out here acting like he knows Joe Biden personally instead of just a carefully crafted public persona perpetuated by friendly media.

It's sad to see, really.

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

So where does that leave us?

Tribalism, apparently.

2 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Help me out

OK, here's what you said just so we're on the same page.

But I really don't understand why if you were sexually assaulted you'd come forward but sanitize the story to your abuser's benefit. 

Coming forward isn't necessarily about retribution or revenge. When a group of guys talks about sexual assault we put ourselves in their positions and imagine, "I would want revenge because my male pride would be so wounded/offended", but that's not necessarily the reality of accusers. You have to get out of your shoes and into a woman's.

The majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by people the victim knows. If you're a 13-year-old girl and your dad molests you, what is your "win"? There isn't one. If you're a young staffer a Senator you admire fingerfucks you against a wall, what is your "win"? There isn't one.

You believe in the causes this guy stands for, so those will be hurt by the revelation.
Everyone on your "side" will disbelieve you and tear you apart, so you only stand to lose reputation.
No one is going to give you a big pile of money or cushy job.

So if you feel compelled to come forward, you could sanitize it to minimize all of those negatives while still being heard on some level. Maybe the world won't believe the truth, because the world is full of people like 'stache who buy the PR and violently defend the PR, but maybe they'll believe this minimized version.

There's a lot more to it, but that's enough to be going on with.

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

Democrats should have nominated Elizabeth Warren.

"Nah, let's nominate a 100 year old Creepy Sleepy Joe."

Literally fucking ANY of them. Any of them who wasn't Joe. There were 20 fucking options and this is what the Democratic primary voter came up with.

Jesus Christ

And it's not even too late. We could band together to tell Joe to fuck off and install ANY of them in his place and we'd be in a better position.

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

55 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

One the primary lessons of the #MeToo movement was supposed to be that we abandon stupid preconceptions about rape and sexual assault and accept some truths we collectively did/do not.

- Victims don't tell their stories right away.
- Victims don't tell their stories consistently.
- Victims feel terrible shame and guilt and fear about what happened to them, leading to inconsistencies and delays.
- Victims cope by lying to themselves about what happened.
- Victims gain nothing by coming forward and usually lose a great deal.
- Society will find any excuse it can to favor powerful figures over weak ones.
- Partisans will find any excuse to protect power.

If you're a juror, #BelieveWomen isn't tenable because of the way law works.

But as a basic human being dealing with basic humanity, #BelieveWomen simply means that you critically analyze the reactions that rape culture and patriarchy have built into you, and one of the most powerful reactions that rape culture and patriarchy have built into us is that our own morality operates by jurisprudential standards.

So if you're promoting that standard here, you are promoting rape culture, pure and simple.

Our moral intuitions about the world are not guided by "innocent until proven guilty" and Joe Biden is not on trial.

What if my method is to gather all the facts and run them through the filter that is comprised of all of my experiences, knowledge, beliefs regarding human behavior, and reach a conclusion as to what most likely happened? 

Am I complicit in the patriarchy? 

Is automatically believing one party because of their gender really the most reasonable tack here? 

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

'stache out here acting like he knows Joe Biden personally instead of just a carefully crafted public persona perpetuated by friendly media.

It's sad to see, really.

Tribalism, apparently.

OK, here's what you said just so we're on the same page.

But I really don't understand why if you were sexually assaulted you'd come forward but sanitize the story to your abuser's benefit. 

Coming forward isn't necessarily about retribution or revenge. When a group of guys talks about sexual assault we put ourselves in their positions and imagine, "I would want revenge because my male pride would be so wounded/offended", but that's not necessarily the reality of accusers. You have to get out of your shoes and into a woman's.

The majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by people the victim knows. If you're a 13-year-old girl and your dad molests you, what is your "win"? There isn't one. If you're a young staffer a Senator you admire fingerfucks you against a wall, what is your "win"? There isn't one.

You believe in the causes this guy stands for, so those will be hurt by the revelation.
Everyone on your "side" will disbelieve you and tear you apart, so you only stand to lose reputation.
No one is going to give you a big pile of money or cushy job.

So if you feel compelled to come forward, you could sanitize it to minimize all of those negatives while still being heard on some level. Maybe the world won't believe the truth, because the world is full of people like 'stache who buy the PR and violently defend the PR, but maybe they'll believe this minimized version.

There's a lot more to it, but that's enough to be going on with.

Literally fucking ANY of them. Any of them who wasn't Joe. There were 20 fucking options and this is what the Democratic primary voter came up with.

Jesus Christ

And it's not even too late. We could band together to tell Joe to fuck off and install ANY of them in his place and we'd be in a better position.

I guess I can kind of buy that. Maybe. 

My default assumption on the motivation to come forward is to prevent your assailant from doing it to someone else. 

And sanitizing the story this much isn't likely to deter future victimizing. 

[Enchubben 5,510]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We could band together to tell Joe to fuck off and install ANY of them in his place and we'd be in a better position.

I think this is accurate (maybe not 20 different, but probably 2-3), which is exactly why it won't happen.  When the sole reason for many democrats to vote for Joe Biden is because he isn't Donald Trump - there is basically no risk to replacing him with someone who doesn't have all this baggage, and is just as likely to die two years from now of old age as he is to get re-elected.  

[bad_teammate 13,195]

9 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Is automatically believing one party because of their gender really the most reasonable tack here? 

No, and that's not what #BelieveWomen means.

"... #BelieveWomen simply means that you critically analyze the reactions that rape culture and patriarchy have built into you ..."

Here's an example of a reaction rape culture and patriarchy have built into you...

3 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

My default assumption on the motivation to come forward is to prevent your assailant from doing it to someone else. 

Think about why this is your default assumption.

Ostensibly you're not a victim of sexual assault yourself and you probably don't have extensive experience with them, so why would this be your default assumption?

It's not based on experience and it's honestly not even really solid logical reasoning, because it probably won't work and it will almost definitely destroy the accuser even if it does.

It's only there because of a larger cultural sense of machismo and heroism, I think, and that leads you to think of this from your own perspective (largely a male one).

['stache 21,802]

41 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I said it pretty directly. Uncomfortably touching the neck and shoulders? Yeah, that's believable and within what we know of him. Fingerbang her in the halls of the US Senate? Not believable. And that's just on the surface. 

 

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

'stache out here acting like he knows Joe Biden personally instead of just a carefully crafted public persona perpetuated by friendly media.

Yeah, same fucking thing. You fucking troll.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Yeah, same fucking thing. You fucking troll.

So if you realize that you don't actually know Joe Biden, why would your knowledge of Joe Biden factor into the credibility of Reade's story?

[Biff Tannen 45,676]

37 minutes ago, F250 said:

Democrats should have nominated Elizabeth Warren.

"Nah, let's nominate a 100 year old Creepy Sleepy Joe."

The dotard admin should also have not sat around and done nothing for 2 months while a virus spread all over the place, but that's not where we are.  So let's play with the hand we have been dealt.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The dotard admin should also have not sat around and done nothing for 2 months while a virus spread all over the place, but that's not where we are.  So let's play with the hand we have been dealt.

It's May 1st.

The nomination convention isn't until August.

There's plenty of time to replace Joe if sufficient political pressure built, but that would require a liberal voterbase that didn't become Republicans the nanosecond their purported values presented them with difficulty.

i cried when they raped Christine Blasey
tears ran down my spine
i cried when they said they grabbed pussies
like they'd grabbed a pussy of mine

but Tara Reade's lying for money
she loves Bernie and Putin, that's riiiiight

so love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Edited May 1, 2020 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29,189]

this isn't about the technical timing of it.  it's about the optics.  at this point, if we want to defeat trump, we're ride-or-die with old joe.

just the way it is.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

All you guys have to do is not talk about it and get what you want.

I have no idea why you have to try and humiliate this woman while she's losing and you're winning.

It's pathological.

[tantric superman 4,667]

Speaking of classic movies, henry g.

 

['stache 21,802]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So if you realize that you don't actually know Joe Biden, why would your knowledge of Joe Biden factor into the credibility of Reade's story?

Because public personas matter and is how literally everyone in the history of politics has gauged their candidates? What about his public persona makes you believe that he would fingerbang a staffer in the halls of Congress? That he would have only one accuser who  never brought up until he is officially the nominee for president? And the the accusation comes from someone who very recently and very publicly backed the opposing candidate? And who was not afraid to allege uncomfortable touching and just as all of that happened it suddenly turned into a full blown fingerbang?

And where on your list of how victims act is "Victims publicly praise their assailants for supporting women's rights shortly before publicly alleging non-consensual fingerbanging from 27 years ago?"

Your list of how victims often act is mostly correct. It's true that women should generally be believed. But you can't just write off people who are accused unless there is something that makes it believable. Nothing about the accusation when it turned from neck and shoulders to full underskirt insertion is believable. Throw in that she has spent her life in politics and very publicly backed an opponent (something that greatly differs from the Ford-Kavanaugh situation) and there just isn't any reason to believe its true.

I'm not a big Biden fan. I liked Warren. I voted for Bernie in 2016 over HIlary. But none of my disagreements with Biden make me willing to just believe a political opponents very new accusation of forced penetration without a single shred of evidence or a bare minimum of believability. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by 'stache

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, and that's not what #BelieveWomen means.

"... #BelieveWomen simply means that you critically analyze the reactions that rape culture and patriarchy have built into you ..."

Here's an example of a reaction rape culture and patriarchy have built into you...

Think about why this is your default assumption.

Ostensibly you're not a victim of sexual assault yourself and you probably don't have extensive experience with them, so why would this be your default assumption?

It's not based on experience and it's honestly not even really solid logical reasoning, because it probably won't work and it will almost definitely destroy the accuser even if it does.

It's only there because of a larger cultural sense of machismo and heroism, I think, and that leads you to think of this from your own perspective (largely a male one).

First of all, I've definitely heard women say that was their chief concern in coming forward. 

How the hell is that largely a male perspective? Wanting to spare other women the same pain can only be born out of macho heroism?! That's a yuuuge reach dude. 

Also if that's what "believe women" means, I don't understand why you said jurors can't operate that way. And that's a terrible hash tag in that case. Should be #mindyourbias or something. 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[bad_teammate 13,195]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Because public personas matter and is how literally everyone in the history of politics has gauged their candidates?

That's not an excuse. People do a lot of stupid, irrational things.

Quote

What about his public persona makes you believe that he would fingerbang a staffer in the halls of Congress? 

He's an arrogant and ambitious Senator who shows zero respect for women's bodies even in public/on camera.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Quote

That he would have only one accuser who  never brought up until he is officially the nominee for president?

What is it you imagine the significance of "only one accuser" is?

Also, she told multiple people at the time so you are actively lying right now to smear a rape victim on behalf of an extremely powerful man, so good job there bud.

Quote

And the the accusation comes from someone who very recently and very publicly backed the opposing candidate?

Why would this matter in any way?

Quote

But you can't just write off people who are accused unless there is something that makes it believable.

What does "write off" mean? What am I calling for to happen to Joe Biden?

Quote

But none of my disagreements with Biden make me willing to just believe a political opponents very new accusation of forced penetration without a single shred of evidence or a bare minimum of believability. 

More lying.

What are you even doing this for? For what purpose? Do you just get off on tearing down victims of sexual assault? What are you even accomplishing by just lying about this outright?

Indistinguishable from Kavanaugh defenders a couple of years ago. Zero difference rhetorically or logically.

3 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

First of all, I've definitely heard women say that was their chief concern in coming forward.

And yet you and I both know they don't come forward.

Quote

How the hell is that largely a male perspective? Wanting to spare other women the same pain can only be born out of macho heroism?! That's a yuuuge reach dude. 

It's not about wanting to spare others pain, it's about believing that you actually are capable of achieving that. Heroism is the belief that one's actions are part of a larger moral story and that one's individual actions relate to higher purpose or to achieve noble ends.

"He'll never hurt anyone ever again!" is a movie line, not reality. A staffer accusing a Senator will not stop or deter the Senator. That's just not how power works. If it did work that way, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Quote

Also if that's what "believe women" means, I don't understand why you said jurors can't operate that way. And that's a terrible hash tag in that case. Should be #mindyourbias or something. 

Because legal conceptions of reality are different than social ones.

If someone tells me Little Johnny is a sex creep I can tell my daughter to stay away from him but I can't get a conviction and put him in jail for it. If someone tells me Joe Biden raped her then I can consider him a fucking creep piece of shit but I can't get a conviction.

Legal standards and social standards are wildly different things.

 

['stache 21,802]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Indistinguishable from Kavanaugh defenders a couple of years ago. Zero difference rhetorically or logically.

 

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit, and you know it. Facts and circumstances matter, except for you because it helps you beat up on a candidate you hate. We're done here.

Edited May 1, 2020 by 'stache

[henrygandorf 29,189]

18 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Speaking of classic movies, henry g.

 

love me some john sayles.

he was great as ring lardner in that as well.  it's alarming how similar they actually look.  great fucking movie.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Facts and circumstances matter...

I agree. And in these two cases, Reade has far more evidence on her side than Blasey-Ford.

I believe both of these women.

You believe only the one with less evidence on her side.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Guys, seriously, you're winning. You've won.

The people who want a better world and sexual assault victims are losing. Congratulations. Just enjoy the win. Why do you have to force us to pretend like we like it?

[DDD Dad 14,334]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I agree. And in these two cases, Reade has far more evidence on her side than Blasey-Ford.

I believe both of these women.

You believe only the one with less evidence on her side.

Wut?

Look, I'm all in favor of letting this play out.  Open the national archives to review the personnel records.  Let's see if we can find more corroboration.  Let her testify, just like Doctor Blasey-Ford did.

If her story is credible, then let's replace Joe.  We're not there yet.

[Pam Cummings 9,640]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I agree. And in these two cases, Reade has far more evidence on her side than Blasey-Ford.

I believe both of these women.

You believe only the one with less evidence on her side.

What is the evidence you've seen that makes her more credible than Blasey Ford, who testified under oath and actually was very believable(she even managed to pinpoint the night of the incident in question) to the point that the GOP senators replaced their attorney who was there to ask "gotcha" questions with a foaming-at-the-mouth Lindsay Graham??

Edited May 1, 2020 by Pam Cummings

[Pam Cummings 9,640]

Wonder if bad teammate would believe the accuser if they were accusing Bernie?

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

My favorite evidence concerning Reade’s motivation is the 2018 publication where she shared with everyone how awesome Putin is. Her words below.

 

President Putin’s obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports isintoxicating to American women.

Edited May 1, 2020 by GW Hayduke

[Enchubben 5,510]

16 minutes ago, 'stache said:

What about his public persona makes you believe that he would fingerbang a staffer in the halls of Congress? 

He inappropriately and awkwardly grabs, hugs, and sniffs hair of women and children and he openly talks about children rubbing his legs in the pool for starters.  Based on history we know that committing inappropriate (and sexual) acts happens even in the most sacred locations between elected officials and subordinates/assistants.

19 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That he would have only one accuser who never brought up until he is officially the nominee for president? And the the accusation comes from someone who very recently and very publicly backed the opposing candidate? And who was not afraid to allege uncomfortable touching and just as all of that happened it suddenly turned into a full blown fingerbang?

It was brought up when she "supposedly" made a report, and when she told her family members. I say supposedly on the report, because that hasn't been proven. That's where the whole scrubbing of the Larry King interview comes into play. So no it wasn't just recently brought up, not to mention that the timing of when it was brought up shouldn't be a talking point.

28 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Your list of how victims often act is mostly correct. It's true that women should generally be believed. But you can't just write off people who are accused unless there is something that makes it believable. Nothing about the accusation when it turned from neck and shoulders to full underskirt insertion is believable. Throw in that she has spent her life in politics and very publicly backed an opponent (something that greatly differs from the Ford-Kavanaugh situation) and there just isn't any reason to believe its true.

Based on the above there is plenty of believable statements thus far. There are more people confirming this scenario then there were for the kavanaugh accusations, including her family.

The national TV interview on Sunday of Reade should be telling in either case.  All of this to say I don't know if he is guilty or not, and I actually fear that the democrats might decide to put someone else against Trump that has a much more progressive policy agenda.  

[bad_teammate 13,195]

3 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

What is the evidence you've seen that makes her more credible than Blasey Ford, who testified under oath and actually was very believable?

Multiple contemporaneous witnesses for Reade. Zero for Blasey-Ford.

Blasey-Ford says that Kavanaugh assaulted her in the summer of 1982. She didn't tell anyone until 2012. 

Reade says Biden raped her in July 1993 and she told friends and family immediately. Reade says she was retaliated against by being isolated and stripped of responsibilities, which co-workers confirmed. Reade's mother called into Larry King Live a month afterwards to ask about whistleblowing in DC. There is far more in Reade's evidence pile than Ford's. I believe them both. Why don't you?

Regarding Ford's testimony, that's very interesting. I also believed it and found it compelling. I believe every word of it.

But let's think about why Ford was so compelling to us:

1) Her attacker is someone we hate.

This one is obvious. We want to believe her because it benefits us politically and it benefits us socially. 

2) She satisfies our bourgeois sensibilities.

She's articulate and clean and professional and white and conventionally attractive. She's cisgendered. She's married like a good person and has money. In terms of sexual assault/crime, she's a "worthy" victim. She's not ugly or poor or black or uneducated or trans/queer. She's not mentally or emotionally disturbed. She's not a flawed victim.

Reade isn't as worthy a victim for liberal bourgeois sensibilities. She's not as pretty. She's not as articulate. She's not as rich. She's not as well-educated. Her attacker is on our side. Put her in the same circumstance as Ford and she won't come out as well because she's not an professional-class woman who writes things like, "indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter".

She's fucked, basically. She's getting nothing but negatives out of this.

1 minute ago, Pam Cummings said:

Wonder if bad teammate would believe the accuser if they were accusing Bernie?

Absolutely. You don't believe me because your only lens into this is tribalistic, perhaps, but not everyone is like you.

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

My favorite evidence concerning Reade’s motivation is the 2018 publication where she shared with everyone how awesome Putin is. Her words below.

Why is it your "favorite"?

And what is her motivation, specifically?

[bad_teammate 13,195]

If you're gonna rape somebody, boys, make sure she's a little off and has some disagreeable political views.

Then you're home free, baby!

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Multiple contemporaneous witnesses for Reade. Zero for Blasey-Ford.

Blasey-Ford says that Kavanaugh assaulted her in the summer of 1982. She didn't tell anyone until 2012. 

Reade says Biden raped her in July 1993 and she told friends and family immediately. Reade says she was retaliated against by being isolated and stripped of responsibilities, which co-workers confirmed. Reade's mother called into Larry King Live a month afterwards to ask about whistleblowing in DC. There is far more in Reade's evidence pile than Ford's. I believe them both. Why don't you?

Regarding Ford's testimony, that's very interesting. I also believed it and found it compelling. I believe every word of it.

But let's think about why Ford was so compelling to us:

1) Her attacker is someone we hate.

This one is obvious. We want to believe her because it benefits us politically and it benefits us socially. 

2) She satisfies our bourgeois sensibilities.

She's articulate and clean and professional and white and conventionally attractive. She's cisgendered. She's married like a good person and has money. In terms of sexual assault/crime, she's a "worthy" victim. She's not ugly or poor or black or uneducated or trans/queer. She's not mentally or emotionally disturbed. She's not a flawed victim.

Reade isn't as worthy a victim for liberal bourgeois sensibilities. She's not as pretty. She's not as articulate. She's not as rich. She's not as well-educated. Her attacker is on our side. Put her in the same circumstance as Ford and she won't come out as well because she's not an professional-class woman who writes things like, "indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter".

She's fucked, basically. She's getting nothing but negatives out of this.

Absolutely. You don't believe me because your only lens into this is tribalistic, perhaps, but not everyone is like you.

Why is it your "favorite"?

And what is her motivation, specifically?

My second favorite quote from Reade that provides insight into her motivation is:

 

President Putin’s genius is his judo ability to conserve his own energy and let the opponents flail, using up their energy, while he gains position. 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

this circle-jerk is fun and all (is it though?), but there are plenty of things here that don't matter.

this has absolutely nothing to do with blasey-ford, unless you're trying to call specific people out for being hypocrites.  grouping all democratic-voting people together is childish.  her name is appearing way too often in this discussion.

the only things that actually matter are (1) did he do it? and (2) does it matter?

my take is that yes, he probably did it, and no, it doesn't matter.  i mean, it matters in real life, but it doesn't matter in that it won't stop people from voting for him.  this is about an election.  otherwise we're not having this conversation, and nobody knows who tara reade even is.

the derailment of this thread into the lectures about sexual assault victims, while a worthy topic for another thread, really only exists here to shame the unwoke.  fucking spare me.  i'll pull the lever for joe biden in november and i will lose no sleep over it.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

20 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

My favorite evidence concerning Reade’s motivation is the 2018 publication where she shared with everyone how awesome Putin is. Her words below.

 

President Putin’s obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports isintoxicating to American women.

as silly as the russia stuff is, this was going to be an uphill battle for her the moment she decided to include a bernie hashtag in that initial tweet.

['stache 21,802]

23 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

He inappropriately and awkwardly grabs, hugs, and sniffs hair of women and children and he openly talks about children rubbing his legs in the pool for starters.  Based on history we know that committing inappropriate (and sexual) acts happens even in the most sacred locations between elected officials and subordinates/assistants.

It's a pretty big leap from being creepy old handsy guy to inserting your finger into someone's vagine while in the halls of Congress. 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's a pretty big leap from being creepy old handsy guy to inserting your finger into someone's vagine while in the halls of Congress. 

i'll make a completely unfair generalization about my personal feelings on this.

i think people that have crossed the line into sexual assault rarely do it once.  i think it's a pattern of behavior (even on a semi-consensual level, pushing too hard on dates, spouses, etc) and i think it's something that repeats.  if someone did was joe was accused of doing, it would shock me if this was the only time that person did it.  i'm speaking on a general level, not about biden specifically.

on the other side, i think there are people are are weirdly touchy and inappropriate.  and this is not a "sign of the times" thing.  the stuff joe does/did isn't cool now and wasn't cool 40 years ago.  it's not a generational thing to awkwardly touch women's faces or smell hair or whatever the fuck.  but my opinion is that these are not indicative of other, more severe, "crossing-the-line" behavior, that speeds past harassment (you may get fired) into assault (you should get arrested). 

i don't have degrees in the field (obviously) but it is my opinion that joe's handsy behavior isn't a signal that "yeah, he probably sexually assaulted reade".  this isn't like when you find out that a serial killer tortured animals as a child.  maybe i'm wrong.  it happens all the time.

['stache 21,802]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'll make a completely unfair generalization about my personal feelings on this.

i think people that have crossed the line into sexual assault rarely do it once.  i think it's a pattern of behavior (even on a semi-consensual level, pushing too hard on dates, spouses, etc) and i think it's something that repeats.  if someone did was joe was accused of doing, it would shock me if this was the only time that person did it.  i'm speaking on a general level, not about biden specifically.

on the other side, i think there are people are are weirdly touchy and inappropriate.  and this is not a "sign of the times" thing.  the stuff joe does/did isn't cool now and wasn't cool 40 years ago.  it's not a generational thing to awkwardly touch women's faces or smell hair or whatever the fuck.  but my opinion is that these are not indicative of other, more severe, "crossing-the-line" behavior, that speeds past harassment (you may get fired) into assault (you should get arrested). 

i don't have degrees in the field (obviously) but it is my opinion that joe's handsy behavior isn't a signal that "yeah, he probably sexually assaulted reade".  this isn't like when you find out that a serial killer tortured animals as a child.  maybe i'm wrong.  it happens all the time.

I don't disagree with anything here. I especially agree that it's not something someone does only once. But that leads me to believe that if the allegation is true that there would be others. So this fact, in my mind, just adds to the multitude of issues that make this specific accusation lacking in credibility. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by 'stache

[Bama Chick 28,596]

The rallying cry was NEVER “Believe ALL Women”.

It was “Believe Women”.

Here’s my issues with Reade and why she is NOT the same as Blasey-Ford.

Blasey-Ford wanted her allegation kept anonymous and she gave it to her congressperson and then her senator.

Reade used her high follower Bernie centered Twitter account to tease she had damaging information on Biden on the night of Super Tuesday; when it was obvious Bernie was finished.



Which reporter broke the story of Blasey-Ford’s letter? Thus forcing her to come forward? And was more focused on sliming Dianne Feinstein and not Blasey-Ford’s privacy?



Which reporter did Reade send her Roger Stone-esque “tic toc” tweet too?



Blasey-Ford has ZERO public political profile - she wasn’t all over the Internet praising Brett Kavanaugh for decades and then all over the Internet bashing Kavanaugh in favor of a political rival and once that rival lost did she reveal her story.

We know none of that is true for Reade.

I’m not getting into the Putin stuff or Reade’s history of defrauding a charity and then making up easily provable lies when confronted.

We can pretend motives don’t matter but they absolutely do.

As a woman who suffered sexual assault in college, I feel fairly certain I have a better background and life experience to evaluate this situation than most men.

To “Believe All Women” would be a wonderful idea in a perfect world. But this isn’t a perfect world and the political arena ain’t close to a perfect world.

False accusations of rape ARE very rare, despite what the men’s rights types would have you believe.

But false accusations DO exist and they do SO much harm to actual victims because they become the exception to the rule that gets pointed to to discredit victims.

I believe violent racially motivated attacks happen. But Jussie Smollett lied and was believed by many well-meaning people. And his bullshittery has resulted in damage for future victims because now they have his one made up case as a rallying cry to sow doubt when future victims come forward.

I have no idea what actually happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey-Ford or between Joe Biden and Tara Reade.

But looking at their stories and judging both men’s history and both women’s history, I feel comfortable concluding Ford was telling the truth and Reade is not.

I feel sorry for Tara Reade. I believe she is being used as a cudgel for other people and she’s the one who will be left to deal with the fallout all alone when this inevitably fades away. And that’s all I’m going to say about this unless some real evidence comes forward because this whole thing is very sad.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Oh, and if this were true I find it absolutely unbelievable that the Obama vetting team would have missed this.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Attacks on Reade are becoming "bidenesque" in character - see Anita Hill. 

 

[Don Johnson 4,753]

32 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's a pretty big leap from being creepy old handsy guy to inserting your finger into someone's vagine while in the halls of Congress. 

It’s a pretty big leap from being “an over-privileged shithead in college“ to raping someone in high school. But you believe that leap even though Ford didn’t even accuse him of that. 
 

Much more of a leap from creepy handsy in public to fingering in private. 

['stache 21,802]

6 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The rallying cry was NEVER “Believe ALL Women”.

It was “Believe Women”.

Here’s my issues with Reade and why she is NOT the same as Blasey-Ford.

Blasey-Ford wanted her allegation kept anonymous and she gave it to her congressperson and then her senator.

Reade used her high follower Bernie centered Twitter account to tease she had damaging information on Biden on the night of Super Tuesday; when it was obvious Bernie was finished.



Which reporter broke the story of Blasey-Ford’s letter? Thus forcing her to come forward? And was more focused on sliming Dianne Feinstein and not Blasey-Ford’s privacy?



Which reporter did Reade send her Roger Stone-esque “tic toc” tweet too?



Blasey-Ford has ZERO public political profile - she wasn’t all over the Internet praising Brett Kavanaugh for decades and then all over the Internet bashing Kavanaugh in favor of a political rival and once that rival lost did she reveal her story.

We know none of that is true for Reade.

I’m not getting into the Putin stuff or Reade’s history of defrauding a charity and then making up easily provable lies when confronted.

We can pretend motives don’t matter but they absolutely do.

As a woman who suffered sexual assault in college, I feel fairly certain I have a better background and life experience to evaluate this situation than most men.

To “Believe All Women” would be a wonderful idea in a perfect world. But this isn’t a perfect world and the political arena ain’t close to a perfect world.

False accusations of rape ARE very rare, despite what the men’s rights types would have you believe.

But false accusations DO exist and they do SO much harm to actual victims because they become the exception to the rule that gets pointed to to discredit victims.

I believe violent racially motivated attacks happen. But Jussie Smollett lied and was believed by many well-meaning people. And his bullshittery has resulted in damage for future victims because now they have his one made up case as a rallying cry to sow doubt when future victims come forward.

I have no idea what actually happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey-Ford or between Joe Biden and Tara Reade.

But looking at their stories and judging both men’s history and both women’s history, I feel comfortable concluding Ford was telling the truth and Reade is not.

I feel sorry for Tara Reade. I believe she is being used as a cudgel for other people and she’s the one who will be left to deal with the fallout all alone when this inevitably fades away. And that’s all I’m going to say about this unless some real evidence comes forward because this whole thing is very sad.

Nah, facts don't matter. You are rape culture and patriarchy.

Seriously though, add to this that she publicly supported Biden as recently as 2017. It wasn't until she backed Sanders and he lost that she claims he fingerbanged her in a hallway.

[Biff Tannen 45,676]

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Wonder if bad teammate would believe the accuser if they were accusing Bernie?

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

16 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'll make a completely unfair generalization about my personal feelings on this.

i think people that have crossed the line into sexual assault rarely do it once.  i think it's a pattern of behavior (even on a semi-consensual level, pushing too hard on dates, spouses, etc) and i think it's something that repeats.  if someone did was joe was accused of doing, it would shock me if this was the only time that person did it.  i'm speaking on a general level, not about biden specifically.

I think that comports with my observations, as well.  Broadly speaking, guys who do this are predatory.  You see it with Donald Trump--of course he's accused of rape by something like 20 women.  It's because he's a sexual predator.

And the allegation that a guy would pin a woman up against a wall in a semi-public hallway and shove his finger in her vagina is indicative of a predator.  That's not the move of a first-timer.  That's the move of a guy who has done it and gotten away with it plenty of times before.

31 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's a pretty big leap from being creepy old handsy guy to inserting your finger into someone's vagine while in the halls of Congress. 

It's a real big leap.  I gotta say--I find her allegations of inappropriate touching on the shoulder and such to be very believable.  

The allegation that he shoved a finger in her vagina--I'm much less sold on.

For that reason, I'd really like to see the contemporaneous records.  I don't disbelieve her, but I don't think I believe her, either.  I really think we need more evidence.

Just now, Bama Chick said:

The rallying cry was NEVER “Believe ALL Women”.

It was “Believe Women”.

Here’s my issues with Reade and why she is NOT the same as Blasey-Ford.

Blasey-Ford wanted her allegation kept anonymous and she gave it to her congressperson and then her senator.

Reade used her high follower Bernie centered Twitter account to tease she had damaging information on Biden on the night of Super Tuesday; when it was obvious Bernie was finished.



Which reporter broke the story of Blasey-Ford’s letter? Thus forcing her to come forward? And was more focused on sliming Dianne Feinstein and not Blasey-Ford’s privacy?



Which reporter did Reade send her Roger Stone-esque “tic toc” tweet too?



Blasey-Ford has ZERO public political profile - she wasn’t all over the Internet praising Brett Kavanaugh for decades and then all over the Internet bashing Kavanaugh in favor of a political rival and once that rival lost did she reveal her story.

We know none of that is true for Reade.

I’m not getting into the Putin stuff or Reade’s history of defrauding a charity and then making up easily provable lies when confronted.

We can pretend motives don’t matter but they absolutely do.

As a woman who suffered sexual assault in college, I feel fairly certain I have a better background and life experience to evaluate this situation than most men.

To “Believe All Women” would be a wonderful idea in a perfect world. But this isn’t a perfect world and the political arena ain’t close to a perfect world.

False accusations of rape ARE very rare, despite what the men’s rights types would have you believe.

But false accusations DO exist and they do SO much harm to actual victims because they become the exception to the rule that gets pointed to to discredit victims.

I believe violent racially motivated attacks happen. But Jussie Smollett lied and was believed by many well-meaning people. And his bullshittery has resulted in damage for future victims because now they have his one made up case as a rallying cry to sow doubt when future victims come forward.

I have no idea what actually happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey-Ford or between Joe Biden and Tara Reade.

But looking at their stories and judging both men’s history and both women’s history, I feel comfortable concluding Ford was telling the truth and Reade is not.

I feel sorry for Tara Reade. I believe she is being used as a cudgel for other people and she’s the one who will be left to deal with the fallout all alone when this inevitably fades away. And that’s all I’m going to say about this unless some real evidence comes forward because this whole thing is very sad.

Yeah--it's these tweets that are really making it hard for me to say that I believe Reade.  I mean, she clearly has an agenda here.

But at the same time, if some guy sexually assaulted you, wouldn't you be politically opposed to him?  Wouldn't you want to time the release of your nuclear bomb on him so as to do maximum damage?

I don't know.  I can just see that both ways.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Did we get a lineup of women accusing Kavanaugh or just the one?

Or do these things only matter with imperfect victims of people on our team?

[Don Johnson 4,753]

9 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The rallying cry was NEVER “Believe ALL Women”.

It was “Believe Women”.

Here’s my issues with Reade and why she is NOT the same as Blasey-Ford.

Blasey-Ford wanted her allegation kept anonymous and she gave it to her congressperson and then her senator.

Reade used her high follower Bernie centered Twitter account to tease she had damaging information on Biden on the night of Super Tuesday; when it was obvious Bernie was finished.



Which reporter broke the story of Blasey-Ford’s letter? Thus forcing her to come forward? And was more focused on sliming Dianne Feinstein and not Blasey-Ford’s privacy?



Which reporter did Reade send her Roger Stone-esque “tic toc” tweet too?



Blasey-Ford has ZERO public political profile - she wasn’t all over the Internet praising Brett Kavanaugh for decades and then all over the Internet bashing Kavanaugh in favor of a political rival and once that rival lost did she reveal her story.

We know none of that is true for Reade.

I’m not getting into the Putin stuff or Reade’s history of defrauding a charity and then making up easily provable lies when confronted.

We can pretend motives don’t matter but they absolutely do.

As a woman who suffered sexual assault in college, I feel fairly certain I have a better background and life experience to evaluate this situation than most men.

To “Believe All Women” would be a wonderful idea in a perfect world. But this isn’t a perfect world and the political arena ain’t close to a perfect world.

False accusations of rape ARE very rare, despite what the men’s rights types would have you believe.

But false accusations DO exist and they do SO much harm to actual victims because they become the exception to the rule that gets pointed to to discredit victims.

I believe violent racially motivated attacks happen. But Jussie Smollett lied and was believed by many well-meaning people. And his bullshittery has resulted in damage for future victims because now they have his one made up case as a rallying cry to sow doubt when future victims come forward.

I have no idea what actually happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey-Ford or between Joe Biden and Tara Reade.

But looking at their stories and judging both men’s history and both women’s history, I feel comfortable concluding Ford was telling the truth and Reade is not.

I feel sorry for Tara Reade. I believe she is being used as a cudgel for other people and she’s the one who will be left to deal with the fallout all alone when this inevitably fades away. And that’s all I’m going to say about this unless some real evidence comes forward because this whole thing is very sad.

You assume the support of Bernie triggered the assault allegation. 

Why not assume the assault triggered the support of Biden’s opponent?

Wouldn't you support your attacker’s opponent?  You don’t see a scenario where Reade is thinking “I’m going to keep this to myself unless it actually appears that my attacker could be president?”  

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Bernie was accused of being a jerk to staffers and I believe that 100%. He seems irascible to me and I believe he's snapped at people working for him.

But if this is how you people make yourselves feel better about essentially being Republicans, party hard.