Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden

[bad_teammate 13215]

44 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i did it to amuse.

Yes, a troll.

[henrygandorf 29192]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, a troll.

stop being so hilarious then.  i can only work with material you provide. 

an artist is nothing without his muse.

[bad_teammate 13215]

Great, so who else has watched the interview with Reade and has commentary on it?

[henrygandorf 29192]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Great, so who else has watched the interview with Reade and has commentary on it?

i'll watch by late morning tomorrow and will welcome an honest discussion about it.

#notrolling

[JimmyJames 12271]

Based on recent posts, I actually think we have reached the stage of self actualization trolling here on this board.

So congrats to the board. That is quite a feat. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

I thought I read somewhere that the Biden campaign was ramping up its internet operations. That’s all good and all, but when are they gonna send us the pro Biden version of BT on this board so some of us can take a break? Countering all his pro trump lies is definitely getting tiresome.

[bad_teammate 13215]

Yes, you're doing god's work by calling Tara Reade ugly and joining in with a pile-up of hooting, self-loathing jackals.

[washparkhorn 9939]

Biden needs to look more and more like a caretaker President. His VP pick will send an enormous signal to those watching. 

Biden was terrible choice, but he is the choice. We have to make lemonade out of lemons. He needs to be out there declaring policies because we have two gigantic disasters headed our way  - the continued calamity caused by this virus and an economy that will be in deep recession. He needs to be rolling out deep policy discussions and plans for both disasters. It needs to be less Biden and more like Reagan's team. Ronnie wasn't calling all the shots. He had big ideas and staff that knew how to implement those policies effortlessly. People are nervous about the future. 

Hate Trump is not enough. I am sure Biden will pivot, but he needs to have his ducks in a row. I hope that is happening and we are just not seeing it yet.

[Message Board User 12395]

 

[tantric superman 4667]

She had some really poor responses in the last part of that interview. 

When all is said and done, Biden gets egg on his face for the whole "believe women" approach. 

If this thing gets legs, it's going to take a Bill Clinton-esque kind of admission. 

[henrygandorf 29192]

i just watched it, so this is gonna be all over, and i might add later.  i think i feel pretty much the same as i did going in.  i thought kelly did a good job.  she asked the questions she should've asked without coming at her hard from any particular angle or agenda.

i still have a few issues with the way her story has been rolled out, not in regards to the current timing (which is either suspicious, intentional, or a gigantic coincidence), but in regards to what happened in 1993.  she seems very clear and speaks in great detail and depth about the "sexual harassment" work stuff.  she seemed very affected by that.  and knowing what we know about biden, i thought the harassment stuff seemed fairly tame.  definitely present-day workplace hr complaint time, but not "let's get the cops involved" type of stuff, especially back in the early 90's in dc politics.  i feel like we've seen biden act worse on video than what she described in her harassment section (before the assault).

she also was big on the "retaliation" phase of it.  she used that word a lot, but she didn't describe much (or maybe i missed it) besides her eventual dismissal.  i think this was something that she felt, it was personal, and it hurt her, because she did like biden and she did like her job and being around that whole world.  it's understandable.  it's also understandable that she would speak in differing degrees about what happened in the "harassment" category vs the "assault" incident.  saying they were described differently doesn't leave me thinking one or the other was made up or in any way embellished.  just something i noticed.

it bothered me a little that she spoke the way she did about it being "political".  she's not an idiot, she knew it would be, but something didn't sit right with me with some of her answers.  i also didn't love her explanation of why she was so supportive of obama/biden in 08-16 and biden himself until 2017, but then felt it was important to tell her story now, blaming it all on "biden's campaign platform of character".  i think there's a decent sized shaded area in a venn diagram where this happened exactly like she said, but "just getting her story out to encourage other survivors" isn't the whole reason it's coming out during a controversial election season.  complaining about getting her name dragged through the mud while acknowledging the timing of it lacked a little self-awareness i thought.  also biden was a heartbeat away from the presidency for 8 years, and she didn't start going to press outlets until last april.  not great for the optics and backing up her motivations.

the russia stuff was kinda stupid and made her sound a little silly when she tried to explain it.  the bernie stuff wasn't a factor, at least in this interview, other than her just being progressive in her overall political views.  i don't think she's getting coached or maneuvered by anyone (russia, bernie people, whomever).  i didn't get that vibe.  her polygraph answer was shitty.  some of her other answers could've been better, but that's cosmetics and posturing.

i do think (and i've already said on this thread) that this escalation seemed out of character for her and biden's 1993 relationship, and if it happened exactly like she claimed, it did seem like the type of thing the assaulter would've done more than once (or had other escalations with other people).  kelly brought this up as well.  that could mean she exaggerated, or that could mean there are 15 other women out there biting their tongue.  i'm not editorializing on that one.  just an observation.

back to the 1993 timeline for a sec.  the way she mentioned the complaint she filed, and stories she told karen and her mother, and the timing of her getting fired, it almost seemed to me like she was uncomfortable with the inappropriate touching or whatever, and then filed the complaint, and then the assault happened afterwards.  i know this is not what she's saying, but the timing of her filing that complaint seemed a little off, and her emotions matched the timeline of events better than the complaint timing indicates.  add that to the fact that she seems certain she didn't mention assault (or maybe even harassment) in the written complaint, and it seems even more strange.  again, i know this is common with victims, so i'm not saying it in a bad way, but it stuck out to me.  like something is missing that tied the story together better.  maybe i watch too much tv.

anyhow, i still think she's a little nutty, was going through a hard time back then, and something happened that crossed the line of biden's other inappropriate (but ~legal) office behavior.  i don't know if it's exactly like she said, but if reade is on one end and biden is on the other, i'm about 80-20 towards reade on where i'm standing.  maybe 90-10.

i think there's a bigger story out there, that she touched on while trying to explain how so many can believe her and still vote biden no problem (like me!), and she described it as a current cultural problem in the world, and there's something to that.  we live in a weird time and many see biden as a "lesser of two evils".  sad that ultimately trump will get blamed for this woman getting silenced.  one of the few women he probably didn't harass or assault.

i'm happy to discuss points of the interview.  i'm not going 12 rounds over some nitpicky things.

[washparkhorn 9939]

Quote

i think there's a bigger story out there, that she touched on while trying to explain how so many can believe her and still vote biden no problem (like me!), 

Thanks for the analysis and foundations for your opinion. Well said.

On the believe her and still vote Biden voters - I doubt she would vote Trump if she is a self-proclaimed progressive. I don't know what state she lives in, but if it is a battleground state - any vote other than Biden is a vote for Trump. (It works the same way turned around - if one is anti-Biden, then voting for anyone other than Trump is a vote for Biden). 

We have two of the worst running against each other. But one is qualitatively worse for Main Street than the other. 

[Orale 1087]

42 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think there's a bigger story out there, that she touched on while trying to explain how so many can believe her and still vote biden no problem (like me!), and she described it as a current cultural problem in the world, and there's something to that.  we live in a weird time and many see biden as a "lesser of two evils".  sad that ultimately trump will get blamed for this woman getting silenced.  one of the few women he probably didn't harass or assault.

I hear where you're coming from, but I don't know if I agree with the notion (if I understand you correctly) that voting for the lesser of two "evils" is a cultural problem. It's distasteful to an extent I suppose, but it's also realpolitik. Realpolitik is at its essence pragmatism. Voting pragmatically reflects maturity and wisdom in my mind. That's not to say we shouldn't push for high character pragmatic people like Obama, but I don't think it reflects a cultural infirmity of spirit to vote for someone who's good but not great when the alternative is literally exponentially worse.

I'll also say I don't think it's fair for people to characterize Biden as an "evil" choice. He's imperfect and not as innately progressive as I'd like, but I think he is a good and decent man and will surround himself with a diverse and very progressive team that will enact the most progressive agenda America has seen since LBJ.  

[henrygandorf 29192]

10 minutes ago, Orale said:

I hear where you're coming from, but I don't know if I agree with the notion (if I understand you correctly) that voting for the lesser of two "evils" is a cultural problem. It's distasteful to an extent I suppose, but it's also realpolitik. Realpolitik is at its essence pragmatism. Voting pragmatically reflects maturity and wisdom in my mind. That's not to say we shouldn't push for high character pragmatic people like Obama, but I don't think it reflects a cultural infirmity of spirit to vote for someone who's good but not great when the alternative is literally exponentially worse.

I'll also say I don't think it's fair for people to characterize Biden as an "evil" choice. He's imperfect and not as innately progressive as I'd like, but I think he is a good and decent man and will surround himself with a diverse and very progressive team that will enact the most progressive agenda America has seen since LBJ.  

it wasn't my notion, it was hers.  and it was an interesting part of the interview, but only got about 40 seconds worth of attention.  i think there's a bigger conversation to be had about convenience and timing, and coming to terms with bigger-picture truths.

i agree with what you're saying.  but there are a lot of people tearing reade down for 'reasons' and the sad truth, whether we want to admit it or not, is that right now, the legitimacy of reade's claim means little to us because trump is just that bad, and we can't afford to let anything get in our way. 

the complexity of that issue is brought forth by the fact that so many americans live "publicly" online, so they are forced to rationalize their thoughts like they wouldn't have had to even 10 years ago.  plenty of people out there probably believe her, but know they must act differently to achieve their end goal, even if it's some imaginary contribution they're making to the cause.

nobody said biden was evil, not even her.

[Orale 1087]

23 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

nobody said biden was evil, not even her.

I didn't mean you or even her. But it's a common enough sentiment in the online. I think it gets said or is implied so often that the notion becomes normalized which I think is a wrong in itself. But I understand that's not what you're saying. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Orale

[GW Hayduke 1953]

Putting Reade within a larger politik framework, she provides trump/gop with another mean of dulling one of trump’s weaknesses.

Trump doesn’t need Reade to be equal to his transgressions. He just needs it to be something for the right-wing propaganda machine to grab and parrot to those that are wanting a reason to justify Trump’s past, so people can tell themselves that they don’t need to factor in his immoral sexuality (turn out the GOP vote, particularly white women), or to people on the fence to get to tune out and give up on Biden (suppress the left vote).

- Ivanka and Jared and nepotism are ok because Hunter Biden was on a board and made money that one time.

- Russia meddling and trump team’s cooperation are ok because Ukrainegate.

- Stone, Flynn, Manfort, et al. are ok because Obamagate.

 - trump’s pussy-grabbing confession and 26 accusers are ok because Reade.

[Alvin89 108]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Putting Reade within a larger politik framework, she provides trump/gop with another mean of dulling one of trump’s weaknesses.

Trump doesn’t need Reade to be equal to his transgressions. He just needs it to be something for the right-wing propaganda machine to grab and parrot to those that are wanting a reason to justify Trump’s past, so people can tell themselves that they don’t need to factor in his immoral sexuality (turn out the GOP vote, particularly white women), or to people on the fence to get to tune out and give up on Biden (suppress the left vote).

- Ivanka and Jared and nepotism are ok because Hunter Biden was on a board and made money that one time.

- Russia meddling and trump team’s cooperation are ok because Ukrainegate.

- Stone, Flynn, Manfort, et al. are ok because Obamagate.

 - trump’s pussy-grabbing confession and 26 accusers are ok because Reade.

Biden is only the nominee because of nepotism.       President Obama literally was caught on camera saying he could be more flexible with Vladimir after he got re-elected and Russia did whatever they wanted from 08-16. That includes meddling in an election while President Obama was still in office. Biden is on tape sniffing peoples hair and having young girls slap his hands away when he touches them in odd manners. With the economy in its current shape Trump could probably be beaten but Biden is not going to do it. Good Job DNC. 

[Chuckie Finster 22698]

Boy, you managed to string together all the greatest hits in one post.

[Message Board User 12395]

A triumphant return to Where's Hunter? by our friends at the GOP.

 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

14 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

Biden is only the nominee because of nepotism.       President Obama literally was caught on camera saying he could be more flexible with Vladimir after he got re-elected and Russia did whatever they wanted from 08-16. That includes meddling in an election while President Obama was still in office. Biden is on tape sniffing peoples hair and having young girls slap his hands away when he touches them in odd manners. With the economy in its current shape Trump could probably be beaten but Biden is not going to do it. Good Job DNC. 

Lulz right on cue.

Trump’s nepotism is ok because Obama!!

Russian meddling for trump is ok because Obama!!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13215]

The idea that sex offenders are habitual is not based in reality.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/

First, the notion that recidivism (repeat offending) is inevitable needs a second look. Recently sex crimes researcher Jill Levenson of Lynn University in Florida and her colleagues found that the average member of the general public believes that 75 percent of sex offenders will reoffend. This perception is consistent with media portrayals in such television programs as Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, in which sex offenders are almost always portrayed as chronic repeaters.

The evidence suggests otherwise. Sex crimes researchers R. Karl Hanson and Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a large-scale meta-analysis (quantitative review) of recidivism rates among adult sex offenders. They found a rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years. Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years. The figures are clearly out of alignment with the public’s more dire expectations.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Lulz right on cue.

Trump’s nepotism is ok because Obama!!

Russian meddling for trump is ok because Obama!!

This. Trump is easily the most nepotistic President in the history of the USA.  He is also more tied to Russia than any US President since before the USSR was founded. 

The sad thing is that all this nonsense will work.  Americans are mostly idiots, so Alvin89 is gonna make a few thousand rubles, and Putin is going to get the weak or dissolved USA he wants.  

[Hookah Horns 3083]

I just don't know how or why anyone would make a solid judgment about Biden, Kavanaugh, or anyone else based on one person's side of the story in these he said/she said situation. It makes sense to try to weigh all the evidence and judge the credibility of each party to try and determine for yourself what most likely happened. 

But relying on that gut feeling of yours to the extent that it automatically changes your vote? Or makes you feel guilty for voting for the accused anyway? That's crazy to me.

We are never going to know what really went down. So, personally, I just accept that fact and make a mental note of "possibly a bit rapey" in the old mental Biden file. Maybe it would sway my vote if I was torn on the voting decision. But I'm light years from that here. 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

The idea that sex offenders are habitual is not based in reality.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/
 

So, Biden most likely has gotten it out of his system by now? Now my conscience is even clearer, thank you. 

[Herpa Derpa 6126]

9 hours ago, Alvin89 said:

Biden is only the nominee because of nepotism. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21202]

11 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Well played. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[GRHorn 105]

 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

5 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

We are never going to know what really went down. So, personally, I just accept that fact and make a mental note of "possibly a bit rapey" in the old mental Biden file

I'm not trying to get all biological and all but aren't we all, genetically, "a bit rapey"?

But for the rule of law I would have all your white women.

[bad_teammate 13215]

I just don't know how or why anyone would make a solid judgment about Biden, Kavanaugh, or anyone else based on one person's side of the story in these he said/she said situation. It makes sense to try to weigh all the evidence and judge the credibility of each party to try and determine for yourself what most likely happened. 

Both Biden and Kavanaugh have advocated publicly on their own behalf.

What are you talking about?

[Anastasis 23475]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The idea that sex offenders are habitual is not based in reality.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/
 

This is what passes for a Presidential voting guide in 2020 America.  Thanks professors.

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Anastasis

[Biff Tannen 45691]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

 

 

The right is getting better at humor?

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Coalition building. 

[GRHorn 105]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The right is getting better at humor?

Idk about that. But Biden smelling hair is funny, therefore that tweet is funny. 

[henrygandorf 29192]

10 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The idea that sex offenders are habitual is not based in reality.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/
 

yeah, i gotta squint pretty hard to see the relevance here.

i'm sure it's true that the general tv/movie viewing public has the number pegged much higher for habitual sexual deviancy.  i'm sure the numbers are also higher when they're asked about meth production in alburquerque, or bodies stashed in row houses in baltimore.  that was one of the points made in the article.  another was that because the public sees this as repeating behavior, they believe treatment is mostly ineffective.  that's a completely different conversation.

but as this relates to biden (or those like him), i'm having a tough time making a direct correlation.  this article from canada from 12 years ago studied sexual offenders - mostly rapists and child molesters (according to the article).  they also recognize that to qualify for this study, the offenders had to be caught, arrested, and had to actually be convicted of the sexual offense.  the numbers lag without an arrest, and also without it getting reported:

When providing clarifications about the lower than generally acknowledged rates of recidivism, we must be careful not to oversimplify. Recidivism research is as difficult as it is important. For instance, although average rates tell us what percentage reoffends one or more times, we also need to be aware that a subset reoffends at a frighteningly high rate. In addition, there are reasons to think that published findings underestimate the true rates. Most research necessarily omits those offenders who were not detected and arrested or whose victims did not report the crime. Further, many sex offenders plea-bargain down to a nonsexual offense.

i have no idea what years in jail does to a sex offender, but i would assume (hope) it has a negative impact on their willingness to repeat that offense.  but all of that is beside the point.  assuming everything that's been said is true, we can state that joe biden is not a rapist (in this sense of the word) or a child molestor (in any sense).  you could call the reade assault a "rape" but it's not something he got caught/arrested for (i'm not trying to get into the semantics of it).

the biden situation is a matter of what rich, powerful men can and do get away with, because in their minds, it's not illegal.  they think they're entitled, and they come and go as they please.  most of the well-publicized me-too offenders fit this description, and most of them had a long, repeated history and pattern of this type of behavior.  obviously, this article was written about a different type of offender, and well before the weinsteins, spaceys, lauers of the world, so i think it's safe to say there's some new data to analyze.

if you're a man in your 30's-60's, you most likely know other men like this.  college buddies or friends of friends, whatever.  they have an aggressive way with women sometimes, and you hear stories.  there are a couple guys i know like this.  they're not "criminals", but some of their behavior is not ok, and they absolutely have a pattern to their behavior (or did when they were younger).  if it went too far and they ended up getting arrested over it, i can certainly see the pattern stopping.

the move biden made in the way it was described feels like something he'd done before, or done since.  in the halls of the senate in the middle of the day.  this was not his first rodeo, nor his last.  maybe the others were a little more consensual (are there degrees of consent?) but in my mind, if this happened the way she says, there's no way this was one solitary, isolated incident.  and the way reade describes the reaction of biden's staff, tells me that she was not the first woman to make this type of complaint.

[GRHorn 105]

20 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 

if you're a man in your 30's-60's, you most likely know other men like this.  college buddies or friends of friends, whatever.  they have an aggressive way with women sometimes, and you hear stories.  there are a couple guys i know like this.  they're not "criminals", but some of their behavior is not ok, and they absolutely have a pattern to their behavior (or did when they were younger).  if it went too far and they ended up getting arrested over it, i can certainly see the pattern stopping.

the move biden made in the way it was described feels like something he'd done before, or done since.  in the halls of the senate in the middle of the day.  this was not his first rodeo, nor his last.  maybe the others were a little more consensual (are there degrees of consent?) but in my mind, if this happened the way she says, there's no way this was one solitary, isolated incident.  and the way reade describes the reaction of biden's staff, tells me that she was not the first woman to make this type of complaint.

So Joe Biden = Joe Francis

[henrygandorf 29192]

20 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

So Joe Biden = Joe Francis

that dude had a pattern.

[Herpa Derpa 6126]

7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

The right is getting better at humor?

Blind squirrels break clocks.

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Is BT on it?

[Hookah Horns 3083]

14 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Both Biden and Kavanaugh have advocated publicly on their own behalf.

What are you talking about?

 

What are you talking about? Them advocating on their own behalf conflicts with my post how? 

Edit-  I see the confusion. Because I referenced forming a conclusion "based on one person's side of the story," and you're pointing out that we have gotten both sides.

I didn't mean that we don't have access to both sides, though. I was referring to the fact that forming a solid judgment about what happened in these situations usually requires you to pick one side of the story to believe and reject the other. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

Lol @ that Alvin89 dude.  Guy walks into the cletus murdering black guy thread and proceeds to post some archived sun-times article on a black guy shooting another black guy and promptly leaves like he just whipped out the hardest mic drop.  
 

Real shocker he thinks Joe Biden is about nepotism while jerking off to Kushner clips from his latest Middle East cosplay.  I for one, appreciate that dude dropping by anytime.  Laughter is a much needed tonic...

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

5 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Is BT on it?

That’s the ‘You Make Me Gag Forces’.  Sounds the same, but definitely isn’t the same.  

Edited May 14, 2020 by ChiTownDoc

[bad_teammate 13215]

1 hour ago, Hookah Horns said:

I was referring to the fact that forming a solid judgment about what happened in these situations usually requires you to pick one side of the story to believe and reject the other. 

Yes, of course. That's how all judgement works when there is conflicting testimony/evidence. If we don't do this then all someone has to do is lie and then everything is OK for them always.

I just don't know how or why anyone would make a solid judgment about Biden, Kavanaugh, or anyone else based on one person's side of the story in these he said/she said situation. It makes sense to try to weigh all the evidence and judge the credibility of each party to try and determine for yourself what most likely happened. 

So this is your original statement; no one is doing this.

I'm listening to Reade and Biden and out of the end of my thought process I come out with Biden being a powerful, arrogant creep who, in a midlife crisis, would be aggressively flirtatious with an attractive woman in her late 20s who, by her own testimony, dressed in a sexually provocative way. I believe he is lying about it now because he stands to gain the most powerful position in the entire world and achieve his life's ambition, casting himself as the almost literal savior of humanity.

What I'm using to base my judgment on:
- Reade's testimony
- Reade's 3 (or more?) corroborating contemporary witnesses to sexual assault
- Her being removed/reassigned abruptly (corroborated by the interns she supervised)
- Her having nothing to gain from any of this and only much to lose
- Biden's history of sexualized creepiness (too many to count)
- Biden's history of lying about any/everything (too many to count)
- Biden's history of physical aggressiveness (physically threatening people on camera who challenge him even slightly)
- Biden's history of disdain for people he sees as beneath him (telling immigration activists to vote for Trump, again on camera, while he is running for president)
- Biden's lack of professionalism and self-control (see the previous 2)
- Biden's standing to gain the world

So yeah, I listen to all of it and I have a thought process and weigh things against each other and I come out of the other end with an idea.

I reject the idea that "well if she's the only victim then that's not likely" because people saying "oh he would have done this multiple times" are pretending to know things about sexual assault that they don't actually know and just "know" from TV shows (like movies and TV convinced conservatives that Vietnam vets returned home to protests and spitting; a complete myth). This is the insidiousness of "common sense" unexamined.

I also reject his own testimony that nothing like this happened. He's a perpetual lying machine. Perhaps he's telling the truth this time, but the boy who cried wolf teaches us an important lesson. He has no credibility. Some find his lying charming well... guess what... a lot of people find Republican politician lying charming as well.

As henry says, whether or not Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade is not necessarily relevant to the question of whether to vote for Trump, vote for Biden, or sit out. For some voters it is, but I imagine that, for the vast majority of voters engaged enough to even know about the Reade accusation, it doesn't matter. (I'm probably the #1 Reade defender here and it doesn't matter to me with regard to the Biden v Trump v stay-home question.)

[henrygandorf 29192]

10 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I reject the idea that "well if she's the only victim then that's not likely" because people saying "oh he would have done this multiple times" are pretending to know things about sexual assault that they don't actually know and just "know" from TV shows (like movies and TV convinced conservatives that Vietnam vets returned home to protests and spitting; a complete myth). This is the insidiousness of "common sense" unexamined.

i rejected the whole premise of this idea and argued against the article you posted, but you didn’t respond to any of it.  i think powerful men like biden (who you described at length above) absolutely have a pattern of repeated behavior, and i used that thought process to go the other way with it.

i think it’s very likely he did this type of thing multiple times, though we will likely never hear from most of the women involved. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

16 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, of course. That's how all judgement works when there is conflicting testimony/evidence. If we don't do this then all someone has to do is lie and then everything is OK for them always.

I just don't know how or why anyone would make a solid judgment about Biden, Kavanaugh, or anyone else based on one person's side of the story in these he said/she said situation. It makes sense to try to weigh all the evidence and judge the credibility of each party to try and determine for yourself what most likely happened. 

So this is your original statement; no one is doing this.

I'm listening to Reade and Biden and out of the end of my thought process I come out with Biden being a powerful, arrogant creep who, in a midlife crisis, would be aggressively flirtatious with an attractive woman in her late 20s who, by her own testimony, dressed in a sexually provocative way. I believe he is lying about it now because he stands to gain the most powerful position in the entire world and achieve his life's ambition, casting himself as the almost literal savior of humanity.

What I'm using to base my judgment on:
- Reade's testimony
- Reade's 3 (or more?) corroborating contemporary witnesses to sexual assault
- Her being removed/reassigned abruptly (corroborated by the interns she supervised)
- Her having nothing to gain from any of this and only much to lose
- Biden's history of sexualized creepiness (too many to count)
- Biden's history of lying about any/everything (too many to count)
- Biden's history of physical aggressiveness (physically threatening people on camera who challenge him even slightly)
- Biden's history of disdain for people he sees as beneath him (telling immigration activists to vote for Trump, again on camera, while he is running for president)
- Biden's lack of professionalism and self-control (see the previous 2)
- Biden's standing to gain the world

So yeah, I listen to all of it and I have a thought process and weigh things against each other and I come out of the other end with an idea.

I reject the idea that "well if she's the only victim then that's not likely" because people saying "oh he would have done this multiple times" are pretending to know things about sexual assault that they don't actually know and just "know" from TV shows (like movies and TV convinced conservatives that Vietnam vets returned home to protests and spitting; a complete myth). This is the insidiousness of "common sense" unexamined.

I also reject his own testimony that nothing like this happened. He's a perpetual lying machine. Perhaps he's telling the truth this time, but the boy who cried wolf teaches us an important lesson. He has no credibility. Some find his lying charming well... guess what... a lot of people find Republican politician lying charming as well.

As henry says, whether or not Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade is not necessarily relevant to the question of whether to vote for Trump, vote for Biden, or sit out. For some voters it is, but I imagine that, for the vast majority of voters engaged enough to even know about the Reade accusation, it doesn't matter. (I'm probably the #1 Reade defender here and it doesn't matter to me with regard to the Biden v Trump v stay-home question.)

TLDR, we know you support trump so this is all a bunch of bullshit words.

[Bozo_Casanova 26487]

On 5/13/2020 at 10:18 AM, Pig Bellmont said:

Coalition building. 

Better at it by May of election year than Obama was at the end of his second term. Thats what you get with Joe Biden. On the other hand you also get a guy who has struggled with a stammer his entire life ans struggles to answer questions cogently. He's Claudius, basically. 

[bad_teammate 13215]

6 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i rejected the whole premise of this idea and argued against the article you posted, but you didn’t respond to any of it.

What do you want me to respond to, specifically? I find your overall take reasonable and I think the only substantive disagreement we have is about recidivism (and the usual interpersonal conflict, which isn't substantive).

To me, the idea that "Oh someone who sexually assaults is something who does it all the time" is something people might use to create an unrealistic world of good guys and bad guys (guys who have never assaulted a woman vs. guys who constantly assault women). It doesn't make sense to me and the data doesn't back it up, either.

Specific to Biden's case, I don't think comparisons to Hollywood producers/actors are apt or compelling. The Hill isn't Hollywood and the rules and social norms are different. And even if I did, you're pointing to extremely specific individual cases and not larger trends.

Besides, we already have testimony from women who say Biden crossed sexual boundaries with them. At this point we're drawing imaginary lines in the sand for unclear reasons.

 

[Orale 1087]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i think it’s very likely he did this type of thing multiple times, though we will likely never hear from most of the women involved. 

You think it's likely Biden has sexually assaulted many times? Or are you referring to the more benign hair sniffing stuff?

[henrygandorf 29192]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Specific to Biden's case, I don't think comparisons to Hollywood producers/actors are apt or compelling. The Hill isn't Hollywood and the rules and social norms are different. And even if I did, you're pointing to extremely specific individual cases and not larger trends.

i think the hill and hollywood - both of which represent decades of rich and powerful entitled white men abusing their power to do whatever they please is much more related than senator joe biden is to your article about convicted rapists and child molesters.  not even sure how you could argue otherwise honestly.

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Besides, we already have testimony from women who say Biden crossed sexual boundaries with them. At this point we're drawing imaginary lines in the sand for unclear reasons.

which again proves my point and perspective.

you seem to be clinging to this article and newfound take that "oh, movies and tv make it seem like every assaulter has a pattern of repeated behavior".  that article did not ring relevant to me, yet now you seem to be doubling down on it.  but none of that bothers me.  you seem to be using the notion that recidivism is unlikely as a reason to believe reade.  i am using the opposite assumption to also believe reade.  i'm not even disagreeing with your takeaway from the article itself.  also joe biden doesn't qualify as a "recidivist" candidate, by definition. 

i don't know if there are biden/reade arguments on twitter or something where biden defenders are saying "then why aren't there 25 women claiming this?!?" but that's not my point at all.  i'm agreeing with you, but i don't think that article or stats on recidivism helps or hurts these arguments.