Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden

[bad_teammate 13132]

The staff declined to take action, Ms. Reade said, after which she filed a written complaint with a Senate personnel office. She said office staff took away most of her duties, including supervising the interns; assigned her a windowless office; and made the work environment uncomfortable for her.
....
At the time of the alleged assault, Ms. Reade said she was responsible for coordinating the interns in the office. Two former interns who worked with her said they never heard her describe any inappropriate conduct by Mr. Biden or saw her directly interact with him in any capacity but recalled that she abruptly stopped supervising them in April, before the end of their internship. Others who worked in the office at the time said they remembered Ms. Reade but not any inappropriate behavior.

More contemporaneous corroboration from the NYTimes piece.

[Zombie 284]

I like this line:
No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of our reporting, nor did any former Biden staff corroborate Reade’s allegation. We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.
"Other than the pattern we found, we didn't find a pattern."
The aspect that makes it the most concrete is the contemporaneous accounts. The idea that she told a friend about it in 1993 to set up a hit job 3 decades later is just QAnon stuff.
Also, NYT not being even slightly subtle with this line...
Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.

Are there allegations he sexually assaulted someone else? What pattern of sexual assault are you referring to?

[Lurch 5921]

Of the two candidates credibly accused of sexual assault, failing intellect, questionable support for policies he touts and frequent poor judgement, I will still exuberantly vote for this one.

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, Zombie said:

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I like this line:
No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of our reporting, nor did any former Biden staff corroborate Reade’s allegation. We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.
"Other than the pattern we found, we didn't find a pattern."
The aspect that makes it the most concrete is the contemporaneous accounts. The idea that she told a friend about it in 1993 to set up a hit job 3 decades later is just QAnon stuff.
Also, NYT not being even slightly subtle with this line...
Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.

Are there allegations he sexually assaulted someone else? What pattern of sexual assault are you referring to?

No.
"Pattern of sexual assault" is not what the article says.

The sentence is funny because it is clearly the work of an author who wants to get the phrase "We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden" out there to whitewash things, but is compelled to confess that the first part of the sentence is actually a lie.

Just now, Lurch said:

Of the two candidates credibly accused of sexual assault, failing intellect, questionable support for policies he touts and frequent poor judgement, I will still exuberantly vote for this one.

Why "exuberantly"? Why radicalize things for this guy?

[Zombie 284]

Fair enough. Aside from what the article reports, my question remains. Are there any allegations that he sexually assaulted another woman in his life?

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, Zombie said:

 Are there any allegations that he sexually assaulted another woman in his life?

Not as far as I know.

Also not sure what the point of this question is since no one has claimed there are other known allegations of sexual assault. Really just seems like you're trying to downplay the importance of Reade's accusations, as if the victimization of one woman is only relevant if it's part of a larger pattern. If that's not what you're doing, what is the point of this question?

[Don Johnson 4745]

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Don Johnson

[bad_teammate 13132]

lol NYTimes had an entire Tweet with that sentence and they deleted it

[edit]

They took it out of the article entirely! #sad

Totally and completely fits with what Joe said to her after raping her. He is 100% correct.

And then I was standing there when he said — he was still near me. He said — pointed his finger and said, “You’re nothing to me. You’re nothing.” And he walked away.

Edited April 12, 2020 by bad_teammate

[Zombie 284]

Not as far as I know.
Also not sure what the point of this question is since no one has claimed there are other known allegations of sexual assault. Really just seems like you're trying to downplay the importance of Reade's accusations, as if the victimization of one woman is only relevant if it's part of a larger pattern. If that's not what you're doing, what is the point of this question?

Because when we're assessing the credibility of the allegation, it's fair to consider the presence or absence of Biden's, and any accused person's, history of whether they've done something similar before or after. It's not determinative of course, but it's a fair evidence point. Having worked as a criminal defense attorney, in my experience it's rare that this type of conduct is a one off or aberration. Particularly when alcohol is not involved.

[Anastasis 23390]

I did chuckle at the “we found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching...” part. 

[Zombie 284]

I did chuckle at the “we found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching...” part. 

It's definitely creepy and he's acknowledged that kind of touchy feely conduct isn't appropriate even if innocent and affectionate. That said, there's a world of difference between rubbing someone's shoulders and shoving your fingers up an unconsenting woman's body. As BT acknowledged, no other woman in Biden's 78 years of life has accused him of anything like this.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Well we do have an extremely well-documented history of Biden sexually harassing women. We have testimony, photographs, and video of Biden using women's bodies for his own enjoyment without their consent or even apparent concern for how his physical imposition matters to them in any way.

When confronted with it, his response was, "I'm not sorry for anything I have ever done."

3 minutes ago, Zombie said:

That said, there's a world of difference between rubbing someone's shoulders and shoving your fingers up an unconsenting woman's body. 

Is there?

Why does a man caress a woman from behind and smell her hair?

[Hank Kingsley 20676]

From the Biden/Reade NYT article: 

On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him. Ms. Reade said she filed the report to give herself an additional degree of safety from potential threats. Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.

 

Is it common not to mention the accused perpetrator by name in a police report? 

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

More importantly there’s this. You know, actual leadership. 
 

And the country doesn’t give a shit about credible sexual assault allegations from the 90s. Are you fucking kidding me?

[bad_teammate 13132]

35 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

This is hilarious, because no honest person thinks that Joe Biden would give the DSA "actual influence over politics and policymaking" even if the DSA endorsed him and began volunteering for him.

Just packs and packs of liars.

(Also, the DSA voted to not endorse anyone but Bernie a long time ago, so this isn't actually news.)

[bad_teammate 13132]

edit, nm

Edited April 12, 2020 by bad_teammate

[Lurch 5921]

Why "exuberantly"? Why radicalize things for this guy?

Trump is truly THAT bad.

I agree strongly that he was among the worst of 20+ candidates. I most aligned with Bernie. Bernie is now not an option.

In 4 years I’ll happily join you in criticizing Joe until he’s nominated again. He’s shit, but for now he’s our best option and we need every vote to ensure Trump doesn’t get another term to fuck us even more. Massive SCOTUS seats are in play. I’d not fuck that up just to make an ideology point.

[GRHorn 105]

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I did chuckle at the “we found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching...” part. 

That line itself should be enshrined in the media bias thread for all eternity

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Is this one of those “What I would tweet to let everyone know I’ve been kidnapped” kind of exercises?

[bad_teammate 13132]

MSNBC joining NYT in making very very sure to imply that Reade is a lying fraud.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

11 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

We're all very worried about the impressionable swing voters here who are going to base their decisions on our posts, right? That's why my not voting for Biden unless he promises to not actively veto progressive legislation is as good as a vote for Trump, right?

If that's the case, then surely the unwillingness of basically everyone here to either not praise Joe at all or couch all Biden praise in a cocoon of qualifications and negativity sends bad signals to those impressionable swing voters.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Still not getting it and this post make no sense. But whatever.

You’re a progressive right? You should be doing everything in your power now to defeat trump, which unfortunately for you I guess, means supporting Joe. Sorry about that but its a fact. Once he’s the president and Trump is out you can then say whatever the fuck you want. Until that day happens, your criticism of Joe is simply, perhaps unintended, Trump support. 

Learn it. Live it. Love it. 

[David Dennison 18646]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

MSNBC joining NYT in making very very sure to imply that Reade is a lying fraud.

 

It actually implies that she has an incentive not to lie.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

That line itself should be enshrined in the media bias thread for all eternity

 

 

Do you still want trump to win in 2020? Because if so, you are in support of more Americans dying at his hand. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You’re a progressive right? You should be doing everything in your power now to defeat trump, which unfortunately for you I guess, means supporting Joe. Sorry about that but its a fact. Once he’s the president and Trump is out you can then say whatever the fuck you want. Until that day happens, your criticism of Joe is simply, perhaps unintended, Trump support. 

Most of the posters here: "Joe fucking sucks and I will absolutely vote for him. Fuck Trump I'll never vote for him."
Me: "Joe fucking sucks and I will probably still vote for him. Fuck Trump I'll never vote for him."

Don't you think ALL of us are sending a pretty bad message towards undecided voters by having absolutely nothing good to say about Joe Biden aside from, "Uh... he's not as bad as Donald Trump, a guy we think is the worst human being alive."?

I know you guys are fixated on the one difference, but maybe have some self-awareness.

Realistically, I don't think what any of us has to say here matters at all. I think what we say in real life and the activism we pursue in real life matters.

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It actually implies that she has an incentive not to lie.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's their intention at all. Just get the negative message said out loud and that'll stick.

[SaucyJack 3487]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

I can't believe the Democratic Socialists of America aren't endorsing Joe Biden.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Why does a man caress a woman from behind and smell her hair?

Caressing a beautiful woman feels good.  A beautiful woman's hair smells good.

[bad_teammate 13132]

White voters, man. Fuck.

1/ Biden starts the general election with a lead in national polls, but it's closer than it looks. The polls show the electorate split along the same demographic lines as 2016, leaving Trump's relative edge in the Electoral College intact.

2/ So far, national polls show virtually no change among white voters with or without college degree over the last four years. But Biden does appear to be doing quite a bit better among older voters and weaker among nonwhite voters

3/ As an aside, a lot of the analysis that you see, suggesting that Biden is doing worse or better among so-and-so group, is based on cherry-picking or an apples-to-oranges comparison of national RDD polls to exit polls. [clap emoji] it hasn't changed [clap emoji]

4/ Trump's persistent strength among white voters without a degree means his relative advantage in the white, working class battleground states persists as well. Not much question that Trump continues to fare better in the battlegrounds than he does nationwide

5/ And on top of this, these are polls of registered voters, not likely voters. Turnout's always a question but LVs are almost better for the GOP than RVs, and I'd guess that will hold again.

6/ Over all, Trump's probably doing 4 or 5 points--and perhaps more--among likely voters in the electoral tipping point states than he does among registered voters nationwide

 

 

[G650 14074]

On 4/11/2020 at 11:46 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

He would effectively be a placeholder president. He only ran because he felt like he was the best option to get Trump out of office. 

I honestly don't see how anyone could come to any other conclusion.

[David Dennison 18646]

59 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

White voters, man. Fuck.

1/ Biden starts the general election with a lead in national polls, but it's closer than it looks. The polls show the electorate split along the same demographic lines as 2016, leaving Trump's relative edge in the Electoral College intact.

2/ So far, national polls show virtually no change among white voters with or without college degree over the last four years. But Biden does appear to be doing quite a bit better among older voters and weaker among nonwhite voters

3/ As an aside, a lot of the analysis that you see, suggesting that Biden is doing worse or better among so-and-so group, is based on cherry-picking or an apples-to-oranges comparison of national RDD polls to exit polls. [clap emoji] it hasn't changed [clap emoji]

4/ Trump's persistent strength among white voters without a degree means his relative advantage in the white, working class battleground states persists as well. Not much question that Trump continues to fare better in the battlegrounds than he does nationwide

5/ And on top of this, these are polls of registered voters, not likely voters. Turnout's always a question but LVs are almost better for the GOP than RVs, and I'd guess that will hold again.

6/ Over all, Trump's probably doing 4 or 5 points--and perhaps more--among likely voters in the electoral tipping point states than he does among registered voters nationwide

 

 

None of this matters one bit until late September at the earliest.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 4/11/2020 at 11:46 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

I understand the defeatist attitudes from Bernie progressives when it comes to Biden's past record and using that as a prediction for what his administration will do.  They use Bernie's consistent track record as a reason to vote for him, so it's natural to use an opponent's record against them.

But the optimist in me doesn't really believe Biden is running for President to enact his longtime, personal beliefs. He would effectively be a placeholder president. He only ran because he felt like he was the best option to get Trump out of office. 

If Joe wins the election, I think he becomes a proxy for what the rest of the Dem party wants to enact. And while a lot of progressives argue that Dems are the same establishment, conservative party they have been for decades, I don't agree.  

Yep. All Biden really needs to do is pick a good VP candidate and live until at least January 20th.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

Biden’s role, and this would have been the same if it were Bernie, Beto, whomever, is to rebuild what the Dotard and Rs have broken. No more. 
 

2024 is when policies will matter again, assuming the Dotard is ousted in 2020. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Biden’s role, and this would have been the same if it were Bernie, Beto, whomever, is to rebuild what the Dotard and Rs have broken. No more. 

2024 is when policies will matter again, assuming the Dotard is ousted in 2020. 

This is just conservatism. Not being dramatic or provocative or trolling here, but this is literally what conservative ideology is.

I think you should spend some time thinking about what this nation should be. We should build towards that, not the past.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is just conservatism. Not being dramatic or provocative or trolling here, but this is literally what conservative ideology is.

I think you should spend some time thinking about what this nation should be. We should build towards that, not the past.

Impossible to build towards something when the underlying structure is in ruins. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

What you're saying is just so profoundly vague.

Let's think about something specific, what is something specific you would describe as an underlying structure in ruins?

[bad_teammate 13132]

We have a bad house. A terrible contractor comes in and makes it a lot worse.

- Hire a contractor to rebuild it to the original bad house.
- Hire a contractor to build the renovated house you want.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Yes, you do. You just don't know what you're talking about.

[SneezyB 29]

 q

Edited April 13, 2020 by SneezyB
fuck

[bad_teammate 13132]

Here you go:

 

[Hank Kingsley 20676]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What you're saying is just so profoundly vague.

Let's think about something specific, what is something specific you would describe as an underlying structure in ruins?

For me, it's voter suppression and the electoral college. 

[SneezyB 29]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Here you go:

 

One of the pathetically few intellectually honest me-too-ers

[burntorangebongos 10681]

For me, corruption and imbalance of power in the three branches of government due to checks and balances being eroded.

[henrygandorf 29174]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We have a bad house. A terrible contractor comes in and makes it a lot worse.

- Hire a contractor to rebuild it to the original bad house.
- Hire a contractor to build the renovated house you want.

we hired a contractor to build a house on a decent, but flawed foundation.  the contractor spent 3 years absolutely wrecking the foundation and hasn't even finalized plans on the house yet, although he's claimed we'll see some blueprints and floorplans in 8 months or so.  do we:

-hire a new contractor to build the new house now on the shitty foundation

-hire a contractor to rebuild the foundation so that a new house can eventually exist there

[Hookah Horns 3072]

The electoral college sucks ass. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

For me, it's voter suppression and the electoral college. 

OK, this is good.

Trump and the GOP absolutely make voter suppression worse. I don't know how they impact the EC, but I guess we could put that down to something like gerrymandering?

30 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

we hired a contractor to build a house on a decent, but flawed foundation.  the contractor spent 3 years absolutely wrecking the foundation and hasn't even finalized plans on the house yet, although he's claimed we'll see some blueprints and floorplans in 8 months or so.  do we:

-hire a new contractor to build the new house now on the shitty foundation

-hire a contractor to rebuild the foundation so that a new house can eventually exist there

lol just torturing metaphors

What are some foundational problems Trump has created that only a conservative approach can address?

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We have a bad house. A terrible contractor comes in and makes it a lot worse.

- Hire a contractor to rebuild it to the original bad house.
- Hire a contractor to build the renovated house you want.

Here's what you keep missing with this and the Charlie Strong analogy.  We already had our contractor hiring committee meeting and decided on a contractor.  You still don't like the fact that the committee didn't pick your guy, so you try to kneecap the guy we decided on before he can even get in the door.   Meanwhile, there has been an arsonist in the house the whole time, and he is still doing damage.  Any contractor we hire will send the arsonist running out the back door into the woods.  So why not wait until our contractor scares away the arsonist before insisting that he use your favored color palette?

You also aren't complaining about Charlie Strong in a constructive way or at a time when we can really make a coaching change decision.  Charlie is going to get to coach the whole season whether you like him or not.  But you're trying to get the players to quit playing for him on the morning of the OU game and handing Stoops his playbook.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

We already had our contractor hiring committee meeting and decided on a contractor.  You still don't like the fact that the committee didn't pick your guy, so you try to kneecap the guy we decided on before he can even get in the door.

Please look at it again and show me where I say they are different contractors and not different jobs. It's hilarious to see people just reveal their own aggrieved mental states so aggressively.

What you're reading into it doesn't even make sense. Contractors do different types of jobs.

Quote

 Meanwhile, there has been an arsonist in the house the whole time, and he is still doing damage.  Any contractor we hire will send the arsonist running out the back door into the woods.  So why not wait until our contractor scares away the arsonist before insisting that he use your favored color palette?

If Biden wins, Trump is out of office in January of 2021. The arsonist is gone right then. It's not a 4-year process.

We should be demanding that Biden enact the progressive changes we need while he is president, not just saying, "Ah, who cares about climate change, prison, drug laws, international wars, and healthcare?" for four years.

Quote

You also aren't complaining about Charlie Strong in a constructive way or at a time when we can really make a coaching change decision.  Charlie is going to get to coach the whole season whether you like him or not.  But you're trying to get the players to quit playing for him on the morning of the OU game and handing Stoops his playbook.

lol again with this "Posting on Surly is actually extremely impactful in the real world" bullshit

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If Biden wins, Trump is out of office in January of 2021. The arsonist is gone right then. It's not a 4-year process.

We should be demanding that Biden enact the progressive changes we need while he is president, not just saying, "Ah, who cares about climate change, prison, drug laws, international wars, and healthcare?" for four years.

Who said anything about a 4 year process?  You are making these demands of the contractor while the arsonist is still inside.  We aren't even at day 1 of a Biden term.  We need to get to day 1 first.

So yes, we should make those demands of him while he is President. And we should even make those demands loudly while he is President.  We should absolutely never shut up about it for the four years of his term if he gets one.  But he actually needs to become President first.  Once he is, we can absolutely rail against him and try to make him a one term President.  But at a bare minimum, we need Biden to replace RBG rather than Trump.  I mean unless you want someone like Falwell on the court.

I get that there is something inside you that wants the whole house to just burn down because Bernie isn't getting elected.  You're gonna need to learn to let that go.  We will have better progressive champions in 2024 hopefully.  Perhaps Bernie's message will finally resonate with you louder than Bernie himself, and you can unburden yourself from feeling that a single messenger is more important than the message.