Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden

[Incredulity 11532]

wheelhouse

[bad_teammate 13125]

Reade interview with Megyn Kelly forthcoming.

So Kelly is just doing a web show now or something?

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Reade interview with Megyn Kelly forthcoming.

So Kelly is just doing a web show now or something?

I'm sure dropping Chris Wallace for Megyn Kelly will win her favor in the court of public opinion.

[wildcat09 29187]

Jesus, an actually good ad from Biden's team:

Anyone know if this is running on tv?

[bad_teammate 13125]

32 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I'm sure dropping Chris Wallace for Megyn Kelly will win her favor in the court of public opinion.

It doesn't look like Reade is having much of a problem in the court of public opinion. According to polling, only 1/3rd of people think the allegations are untrue (32%). (1/3rd think they're true (37%), 1/3rd have no opinion (31%))

Just say what you want to say, Chuckie, don't hide behind being a fake pundit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

How does Bernie feel about Tara? 

[bad_teammate 13125]

You should also just say what you want to say, Hugo.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I have nothing to say about Tara except I hope she finds whatever it is she’s looking for.

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It doesn't look like Reade is having much of a problem in the court of public opinion. According to polling, only 1/3rd of people think the allegations are untrue (32%). (1/3rd think they're true (37%), 1/3rd have no opinion (31%))

Just say what you want to say, Chuckie, don't hide behind being a fake pundit.

I've said plenty in this thread.  But I think this article does a good job of expressing a lot of the things I was trying to say.

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation

Side note, I would argue that a poll that says 63% of respondents don't believe her or don't care is not necessarily a good thing for her.

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

was "i believe her and it won't affect my vote" an option?  i think there's plenty of people in that category, although maybe most wouldn't admit it that plainly.

this is donald trump's america.

[bad_teammate 13125]

32 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I've said plenty in this thread.

Then leave it there. Playing pundit because you don't have the courage or integrity to make your own arguments isn't very useful or interesting.

As I've said, at least regressive conservative misogynists have the courage of their convictions.

Quote

Side note, I would argue that a poll that says 63% of respondents don't believe her or don't care is not necessarily a good thing for her.

What does "a good thing for her" even mean? Is she up for an election? Did she make bets?

42 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I have nothing to say about Tara except I hope she finds whatever it is she’s looking for.

Of course you don't. You just have some trolling motivations.

[bad_teammate 13125]

The liberals love FOXNews now? (Chucky here and a dozen liberal checkmarks like Yglesias below)

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

yes, all liberals love fox news now.  point perfectly made.

it's a little annoying that for weeks it was "why won't the mainstream media cover this story?!?" and now she seems to be bailing on fox news and cnn interviews.

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

The liberals love FOXNews now? (Chucky here and a dozen liberal checkmarks like Yglesias below)

 

It’s Chuckie. And I never said that I love Fox. Why are you lying?

 

What are your thoughts on the vox article?

[Don Johnson 4744]

 

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

Interesting piece....

His firm represented a few of Weinstein's victims....

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

15 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It’s Chuckie. And I never said that I love Fox. Why are you lying?

Explain to me the difference between a Chris Wallace interview and a Megyn Kelly interview. Why did that distinction jump out to you?

Quote

What are your thoughts on the vox article?

No revelations in there, just a person feeling conflicted so... meh.

There's no certainty in any of this, and it's kind of weird that this author would expect certainty. It goes back to the guilty/not guilty binary thinking of jurisprudence. IN a court of law someone is either guilty beyond reasonable doubt or they are not guilty legally. The massive grey area between undoubtable truth and obvious lie all defaults to the favor of the accused, which is great for law but isn't how society itself works.

So when authors like these are so tortured by the reality of the uncertainty of the situation, it's pretty weird.

Think of it this way: If Joe Biden had lost the primary and Kamala Harris was the presumptive nominee, would the op-ed class be as emotionally conflicted about whether or not to believe Reade? I don't think so.

Also, I think it's weird that these commentators talk about the opinions of completely unrelated people like Elizabeth Warren or Stacey Abrams. Those statements from famous politicians mean less than nothing. The author might as well type "blah blah blah" over and over instead of telling us how Kirsten Gillibrand feels about it. Is it meaningful because they are all women? It makes no sense from any kind of rational outside perspective.

It's like when the NYT authors interviewed Biden staffers and then said, "Oh well none of the other staffers remember it happening."

Here's where we're sitting:
- 4 different people who tell reporters that Reade told them about sexual assault at the time it happened (2 anonymous, her brother, her neighbor)
- mother calling in to Larry King Live
- sexual harassment mentioned in 1996 court docs

Reade could be a stark-raving lunatic right now with a "PUTIN RULES" tramp stamp and a mural for Bernie covered in chicken blood and it wouldn't change the reality of what happened in the early/mid-1990s, so a liberal op-ed writer's internal conflict don't really mean shit to me stacked up against those things.

[bad_teammate 13125]

Reade's story is 100% inkeeping with the culture of the Senate at the time when Biden served

(lol Ted Kennedy to Joe's left)

 

[Storm the Field 5270]

Nothing to see here folks. It's all on the up and up.

[bad_teammate 13125]

In that article the VOX writer describes Reade as an "ardent" Bernie supporter. Has anyone ever given evidence to prove that oft-repeated characterization?

3 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Nothing to see here folks. It's all on the up and up.

What's the problem?

[bad_teammate 13125]

"What do you call the act?"

- "The DEMOCRATS!"

 

[Storm the Field 5270]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What's the problem?

A year ago, the corroborating friend, speaking to a sympathetic reporter, volunteered a version of the story that she now claims untruthfully downplayed the real actions from "aggressive penetrative sexual assault" to "never touched inappropriately or even tried to kiss."  

If you don't see how this torpedoes credibility, then I don't know what to fucking tell you.

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

27 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Explain to me the difference between a Chris Wallace interview and a Megyn Kelly interview. Why did that distinction jump out to you?

No revelations in there, just a person feeling conflicted so... meh.

There's no certainty in any of this, and it's kind of weird that this author would expect certainty. It goes back to the guilty/not guilty binary thinking of jurisprudence. IN a court of law someone is either guilty beyond reasonable doubt or they are not guilty legally. The massive grey area between undoubtable truth and obvious lie all defaults to the favor of the accused, which is great for law but isn't how society itself works.

So when authors like these are so tortured by the reality of the uncertainty of the situation, it's pretty weird.

Think of it this way: If Joe Biden had lost the primary and Kamala Harris was the presumptive nominee, would the op-ed class be as emotionally conflicted about whether or not to believe Reade? I don't think so.

Also, I think it's weird that these commentators talk about the opinions of completely unrelated people like Elizabeth Warren or Stacey Abrams. Those statements from famous politicians mean less than nothing. The author might as well type "blah blah blah" over and over instead of telling us how Kirsten Gillibrand feels about it. Is it meaningful because they are all women? It makes no sense from any kind of rational outside perspective.

It's like when the NYT authors interviewed Biden staffers and then said, "Oh well none of the other staffers remember it happening."

Here's where we're sitting:
- 4 different people who tell reporters that Reade told them about sexual assault at the time it happened (2 anonymous, her brother, her neighbor)
- mother calling in to Larry King Live
- sexual harassment mentioned in 1996 court docs

Reade could be a stark-raving lunatic right now with a "PUTIN RULES" tramp stamp and a mural for Bernie covered in chicken blood and it wouldn't change the reality of what happened in the early/mid-1990s, so a liberal op-ed writer's internal conflict don't really mean shit to me stacked up against those things.

Chris Wallace has a nationally televised Sunday morning show.  Megyn Kelly has a... twitter account?  And while neither is perfect, I think Wallace is a universally more respected reporter.  Not to mention that her reasoning for bailing on the Wallace interview was death threats, and then she agrees with a different reporter a few days later.

I respect the rest of your response here, thank you.  I think the issue that will be impossible to resolve is the difference between harassment and assault in regards to these allegations.  I have absolutely no doubt that Biden made her feel uncomfortable.  I think he said things that we all would have issue with.  And Biden making inappropriate remarks to her is remarkably consistent with her story up until March, and the evidence that has emerged since then.  It is also consistent with the dozens of videos of Biden being straight up inappropriate with women. But the assault allegations are what take this to the next level.  The Larry King call makes no mention of assault.  The Court docs make no mention of assault.  The friends/neighbors made no mention of assault until after Reade said it happened.  I am not trying to defend Biden here, I do not think any of that is okay.  But there is a big gap between inappropriate remarks and physical assault.  People who support Biden look at the evidence and say "this doesn't pass the smell test" while people who oppose Biden look at it and assume that any mention of harassment is code for assault from an obviously traumatized and intimidated victim.  I honestly do not know where we go from here or what could possibly sway anyone from their previous opinions on the man.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Chuckie Finster

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I feel bad for Tara because she’s either telling the  truth and being weaponized for political purposes or she’s not telling the truth and being weaponized for political purposes.  This is an operation whether Tara knows it or not and the usual dirtbags are exploiting it for their own agenda. 

[Grandioso 2592]

This. And the bros need to stop with their fucking straight up gaslighting, "None of this has anything to do with Bernie. Obsessed much? What is your deal with Bernie?"

 

[tantric superman 4667]

I don't feel bad for Tara because she should have come forward earlier. 

I accept that she may have reasons for not doing so, but I'll reserve feeling bad for tragically ill children, mistreated dogs, etc.

[SaucyJack 3484]

On 5/5/2020 at 11:44 PM, Johnny Sack said:

He’ll be taking his pants off on air very soon.
 

 

[Storm the Field 5270]

31 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Well put.  I have little doubt Biden probably did his usual creepy uncle routine that he does to every woman.  It's weird, and it's not right.  But that is baked in at this point with Biden.  And it's worlds apart from sexual assault with penetration like she now claims.  There is plenty of room to doubt that part of the story.

For the absolute nothing it's worth, based on everything I've read, and weighing all the evidence to this point, I would definitely be willing to believe that something happened back in 1993, and it's probably fairly close to the version of the story that existed for 26 of the last 27 years.

Biden may have made cringe-y comments and/or been inappropriately touchy. She probably complained to someone in his office and felt that her complaint was ignored and that they ultimately iced her out of a job by giving her a shitty assignment. If true, that, in and of itself, is not at all a good look for Biden and should be properly weighed as evidence against his fitness for office. 

However, she seems to have nursed this likely justifiable grudge against Biden for decades (although usually couched in terms of how the primary issue was how the complaint was handled by Senate staffers), but after shopping this story to reporters during the primaries and realizing it was not generating enough traction to knock him out of the nomination, it morphed into 2020's graphic "finger-banging in the hallway" story.

I await being declared a rape apologist.

[Storm the Field 5270]

Quote

Explain to me the difference between a Chris Wallace interview and a Megyn Kelly interview. Why did that distinction jump out to you?

Primarily, Chris Wallace doesn't ask nonsensical questions like "Joe Biden has said accusers should be given the presumption of truthfulness, do you think he afforded you the same presumption?" 

No Megyn, he clearly did not. He's the accused and is explicitly saying "she's being untruthful, the event never happened." Why on God's green earth would he presume the veracity of an accusation against himself? Either it happened (and he's lying) or it didn't (and she's lying), and he would know, either way. No need for him to presume anything. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Storm the Field

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Food for thought: Biden set up this whole thing so we’d have something to talk about with him to distract us from the fact that he’s the worst campaigner ever. 

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

2 hours ago, Storm the Field said:

A year ago, the corroborating friend, speaking to a sympathetic reporter, volunteered a version of the story that she now claims untruthfully downplayed the real actions from "aggressive penetrative sexual assault" to "never touched inappropriately or even tried to kiss."  

If you don't see how this torpedoes credibility, then I don't know what to fucking tell you.

You don't know what to tell me because you don't know what you're talking about. Women don't report sexual assault immediately or consistently. Friends and confidants don't always tell the full story and often withhold details (or the entire framework) out of respect for the person who told them.

What world do you live in?

Quote

Biden may have made cringe-y comments and/or been inappropriately touchy. She probably complained to someone in his office and felt that her complaint was ignored and that they ultimately iced her out of a job by giving her a shitty assignment.

You're just negotiating with your own conscience here. You're building alternate realities in your head to try and give yourself a soft landing. That doesn't make for sound reasoning.

 

Quote

However, she seems to have nursed this likely justifiable grudge against Biden for decades (although usually couched in terms of how the primary issue was how the complaint was handled by Senate staffers), but after shopping this story to reporters during the primaries and realizing it was not generating enough traction to knock him out of the nomination, it morphed into 2020's graphic "finger-banging in the hallway" story.

What is Reade getting out of it?

Money? Fame? A great job? Comfort and peace? Joy? Salvation? Power?

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Chris Wallace has a nationally televised Sunday morning show.  Megyn Kelly has a... twitter account?  And while neither is perfect, I think Wallace is a universally more respected reporter.

Right, so you're offended that Reade isn't respecting the respectability of FOXNews, like I was saying. You think FOX is more credible than Kelly as an independent. That's fine, but it's exactly what I was talking about that you pretended to be offended by.

During the primary, going on FOX was a sign that the interviewee was an agent of Russia. Now they're an agent of Russia if they don't go on FOX. Weird how that flips, isn't it?

Quote

I think the issue that will be impossible to resolve is the difference between harassment and assault in regards to these allegations.  ... I honestly do not know where we go from here or what could possibly sway anyone from their previous opinions on the man.

Built into this entire paragraph is the idea that women report their assaults widely, immediately, and uniformly. This is not how things work. Victims don't tell the same story to everyone all the time. People who relate the stories of victims don't tell the same story to everyone all the time.

Issue - Occam's Razor

Option A: Reade and 4 other people are lying. (None of them have anything to gain.)
Option B: Biden is lying. (He has the single largest amount of global power to gain.)

Given Joe Biden's history of being a prolific and fearless liar, I'm pretty comfortable in where I sit by saying that A is far less likely than B.

Another issue - Purposefully Misrepresenting Joe Biden's Past

"But there is a big gap between inappropriate remarks and physical assault."

The line on Biden has always been that he touches women inappropriately, not that he says inappropriate things.

What you're doing here is creating a soft alternate reality to play in comfortably. Just like Storm the Field, you're negotiating with your own conscience.

 

51 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

This. And the bros need to stop with their fucking straight up gaslighting, "None of this has anything to do with Bernie. Obsessed much? What is your deal with Bernie?"

What does this have to do with Bernie?

If Joe drops out tomorrow due to these allegations Bernie isn't going to be the candidate. There's no path to the presidency for Bernie and there hasn't been for over a month. It's over. Let it go.

46 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I don't feel bad for Tara because she should have come forward earlier. 

I accept that she may have reasons for not doing so, but I'll reserve feeling bad for tragically ill children, mistreated dogs, etc.

This is the promotion and perpetuation of rape culture.

But it's ok, tantric, you're not alone in doing that. It's very popular here and you'll get nothing but support from everyone but me.

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

In that article the VOX writer describes Reade as an "ardent" Bernie supporter. Has anyone ever given evidence to prove that oft-repeated characterization?

Have you not seen her Twitter account? 

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

- would you expect a woman and her mother to respect her rapist?

Since 80+% of rape victims know their attacker, yes. This isn't strange at all.

Seeing this kind of shit go completely unchallenged by everyone but me is... enervating.

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Have you not seen her Twitter account? 

Not really, do tell.

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

She's a big Bernie supporter and constantly retweeted him and people like Sirota, Turner, Shaun King, etc during the primary. 

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

She's a big Bernie supporter and constantly retweeted him and people like Sirota, Turner, Shaun King, etc during the primary. 

I guess some Tweeting can be considered "ardent", sure.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There seems to be a few steps missing between "Tweets in favor of Bernie Sanders" and "launches a smear campaign against Biden AFTER Bernie's campaign functionally ended".

(A smear campaign that involves many other people and, I guess, time travel.)

Something I'm noticing with Coronavirus conspiracy theorists is that they start with some kind of banal presumption ("Anthony Fauci screwed up AIDS research in the 1980s"), cap it with something alarming ("He is lying about Coronavirus to make money for NAIAD!") and the entire middle section of the logic chain is just... empty. I'm seeing that here.

- She doesn't benefit.
- Bernie doesn't benefit.

?

Is this a "woman scorned" thing?

[Storm the Field 5270]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You don't know what to tell me because you don't know what you're talking about. Women don't report sexual assault immediately or consistently. Friends and confidants don't always tell the full story and often withhold details (or the entire framework) out of respect for the person who told them.

What world do you live in?

I live in the world where if someone tells you "The last time we spoke, I lied, big time, but now I'm telling the God's honest truth," then that person's credibility is suspect.

You've concocted this worldview where everything is universal. Women don't report immediately and their friends don't tell the full story truthfully, ergo that is what happened in the instant case. It's motivated reasoning, nothing more.

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I guess some Tweeting can be considered "ardent", sure.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There seems to be a few steps missing between "Tweets in favor of Bernie Sanders" and "launches a smear campaign against Biden AFTER Bernie's campaign functionally ended".

(A smear campaign that involves many other people and, I guess, time travel.)

Something I'm noticing with Coronavirus conspiracy theorists is that they start with some kind of banal presumption ("Anthony Fauci screwed up AIDS research in the 1980s"), cap it with something alarming ("He is lying about Coronavirus to make money for NAIAD!") and the entire middle section of the logic chain is just... empty. I'm seeing that here.

- She doesn't benefit.
- Bernie doesn't benefit.

?

Is this a "woman scorned" thing?

You asked if there is any “evidence” Reade is a Bernie supporter. I answered by directing you to her personal and public Twitter account, which was riddled with pro-Bernie posts and hashtags during the primary. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

but did she ever actually use the word “ardent”?

check and mate. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

I have corona insomnia but I just screenshotted about 50-60 tweets from Tara Reade and I’ll pull them all together tomorrow.

Her Twitter account is almost all Bernie tweets and hashtags.

You can see a clear escalation in her behavior.

First, she has tons of replies pimping her writing to famous people and Bernie staffers and media folks. In the beginning she’s pushing her grievance over being referred to as pro-Putin and Russia.

Then it becomes about being silenced and “pushed out by Biden”.

Then as the primary became a two way contest, her tweets (which always include links to her writing on Medium) are anti-Biden with Bernie hashtags.

Then after South Carolina, they start including the word assault (still accompanied by Bernie hashtags) and she starts teasing there’s going to be a big story that takes out Biden.

Then we get to Super Tuesday and the “tic toc” tweet to Ryan Grim.



Finally, once she gets the first real media attention, she stops including Bernie hashtags or even mention of him in her tweets about Biden.

Do I believe Biden probably acted like a creep in the 90s? Yep.

Do I believe Joe Biden fingered her in the Senate building? Nope.

Do I believe she has an “agenda” - that she’s upset about Bernie losing and she’s angry that Biden beat him? Yep.

Do I believe she’s being used now as a tool to damage Biden, without any regard for her well being? Yep.

Am I pissed off that her inconsistencies in her story (which are common in abuse victims) will be pointed at by people acting in bad faith to discredit other victims? Yep.

My conclusion is I think Biden probably treated her poorly and she’s been angry about that for years. (Why she spoke positively about him for years is puzzling.) I think she got emotionally connected to Bernie Sanders and was devastated by his loss and that reignited her anger with Biden. She wasn’t getting any traction when her story wasn’t juicy enough. So she juiced it up. And now she’s stuck with a story full of contradictions and gone past the point of backing down.

And the thing that pisses me off the most are the comparisons to Christine Blasey-Ford. Ford didn’t vague tweet for months. Ford didn’t want to go public - she wrote a letter to make Dianne Feinstein aware of concerns about Kavanaugh and was outed when none other than Ryan Grimm wrote an article about that letter. Ford didn’t tweet out any “it’s all about timing, tic toc” nonsense.

I want Reade to be interviewed by a real journalist, not a woman who ignored a culture of sexual harassment for her own gain until other women exposed it and then she jumped on the bandwagon to advance herself.

I want Joe Biden to release every bit of documents from the time Reade worked for him. I want him interviewed about this by a real journalist too.

Reade being interviewed by Megyn Kelly would be like Biden being interviewed by Matt Lauer or Charlie Rose on this situation.

It’s such a fucking mess and the only person who’s going to end up victimized and permanently damaged is Tara Reade.

[UpperWestside 6104]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

I have corona insomnia but I just screenshotted about 50-60 tweets from Tara Reade and I’ll pull them all together tomorrow.

Her Twitter account is almost all Bernie tweets and hashtags.

You can see a clear escalation in her behavior.

First, she has tons of replies pimping her writing to famous people and Bernie staffers and media folks. In the beginning she’s pushing her grievance over being referred to as pro-Putin and Russia.

Then it becomes about being silenced and “pushed out by Biden”.

Then as the primary became a two way contest, her tweets (which always include links to her writing on Medium) are anti-Biden with Bernie hashtags.

Then after South Carolina, they start including the word assault (still accompanied by Bernie hashtags) and she starts teasing there’s going to be a big story that takes out Biden.

Then we get to Super Tuesday and the “tic toc” tweet to Ryan Grim.



Finally, once she gets the first real media attention, she stops including Bernie hashtags or even mention of him in her tweets about Biden.

Do I believe Biden probably acted like a creep in the 90s? Yep.

Do I believe Joe Biden fingered her in the Senate building? Nope.

Do I believe she has an “agenda” - that she’s upset about Bernie losing and she’s angry that Biden beat him? Yep.

Do I believe she’s being used now as a tool to damage Biden, without any regard for her well being? Yep.

Am I pissed off that her inconsistencies in her story (which are common in abuse victims) will be pointed at by people acting in bad faith to discredit other victims? Yep.

My conclusion is I think Biden probably treated her poorly and she’s been angry about that for years. (Why she spoke positively about him for years is puzzling.) I think she got emotionally connected to Bernie Sanders and was devastated by his loss and that reignited her anger with Biden. She wasn’t getting any traction when her story wasn’t juicy enough. So she juiced it up. And now she’s stuck with a story full of contradictions and gone past the point of backing down.

And the thing that pisses me off the most are the comparisons to Christine Blasey-Ford. Ford didn’t vague tweet for months. Ford didn’t want to go public - she wrote a letter to make Dianne Feinstein aware of concerns about Kavanaugh and was outed when none other than Ryan Grimm wrote an article about that letter. Ford didn’t tweet out any “it’s all about timing, tic toc” nonsense.

I want Reade to be interviewed by a real journalist, not a woman who ignored a culture of sexual harassment for her own gain until other women exposed it and then she jumped on the bandwagon to advance herself.

I want Joe Biden to release every bit of documents from the time Reade worked for him. I want him interviewed about this by a real journalist too.

Reade being interviewed by Megyn Kelly would be like Biden being interviewed by Matt Lauer or Charlie Rose on this situation.

It’s such a fucking mess and the only person who’s going to end up victimized and permanently damaged is Tara Reade.

I would imagine that Biden has done some stuff over the years that would be considered inappropriate by anyone's standard at any point in time and not just right now. He is handsy to be sure and that comes from a generation where men did that regularly, but it does not mean it was right. However, when I contrast whatever Biden has allegedly done in comparison to a guy who says he can just grab anyone's pussy he wants I still remember where the focus is at and it's on the guy with the insanely tiny hands.

[tantric superman 4667]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

This is the promotion and perpetuation of rape culture.

I think it's more the promotion and perpetration of the "25 year/try not to fuck up and essentially disenfranchise the voters" rule.

[Pig Bellmont 8679]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I want Joe Biden to release every bit of documents from the time Reade worked for him. I want him interviewed about this by a real journalist too.

The problem here is the same as with Obama’s birth certificate. It’s never enough. There’s a “long form” version that’s not being disclosed. Where are the electronic records, etc etc etc. Biden is doing the right thing by unequivocally denying and not allowing for some sideshow hunt for documents that don’t exist - or if they do, they don’t reference anything sexual anyways 

[Message Board User 12389]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The problem here is the same as with Obama’s birth certificate. It’s never enough. There’s a “long form” version that’s not being disclosed. Where are the electronic records, etc etc etc. Biden is doing the right thing by unequivocally denying and not allowing for some sideshow hunt for documents that don’t exist - or if they do, they don’t reference anything sexual anyways 

The birth certificate is a good analogy.

There are still a goodly number of Cletuses on the right who believe in birtherism, including the POTUS.

No matter how much disclosure happens on this Tara Reade nonsense it will never be enough.

[StassneyHorn 6534]

Unrelated: Good rundown of the Al Franken saga if you got 10-15 minutes. Always wondered what happened afterwards as that seemed to move pretty fast. Trust, but verify needs to be the theme when the situations come up. 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken

[wildcat09 29187]

PSA: it’s actually ok to not know what to think about the Tara Reade accusations. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

I think it's more the promotion and perpetration of the "25 year/try not to fuck up and essentially disenfranchise the voters" rule.

How does this disenfranchise voters? They can still vote for Joe.

I, a person who believes his accuser, will almost certainly vote for him and would rather eat a bullet than vote for his opponent.

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

My conclusion is I think Biden probably treated her poorly and she’s been angry about that for years. (Why she spoke positively about him for years is puzzling.) I think she got emotionally connected to Bernie Sanders and was devastated by his loss and that reignited her anger with Biden. She wasn’t getting any traction when her story wasn’t juicy enough. So she juiced it up. And now she’s stuck with a story full of contradictions and gone past the point of backing down.

Or she is a victim who kept mostly quiet for years, got invested in seeing her rapist lose, and is finally motivated to speak out fully now that her rapist is on the cusp of achieving tremendous power.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Familiar to another recent case that you think Reade is unworthy of being compared to.

So...

- How did she convince these 4 people to lie repeatedly to reporters?
- How do you know what actually happened?
- Joe says nothing at all happened, so you accept that he's lying right now?
- Do you really find it hard to believe that a lying, handsy Senator in the early 1990s gave a cute staffer a little grope?

The content of Reade's story is 100% believable and completely inkeeping with the boys club culture of the Senate. And if we have a Senator who (1) is dishonest, (2) feels physically entitled to women's bodies, (3) does not admit or acknowledge fault, and (4) is arrogant... any rational person using fair judgment would say that Senator fits the profile of someone who would do that.

We're talking about two fingers in the vagina as if it's a terrible crime right now (which it is), but is that how 1970s-90s elite men in power saw it? Would the Bidens and Kennedys and the Packwoods see a fellow Senator giving a cute young staffer a little two-finger hello and think, "MY WORD THAT IS RAPE MY GOOD MAN!"?

If Joe Biden says hello to an 8-year-old by sniffing her hair and grazing her nipples, how do you think mid-life crisis Joe comes on to a young staffer with nice legs who he thinks he's entitled to? A letter and humble request to her father like Mr. Darcy?

 

Quote

And the thing that pisses me off the most are the comparisons to Christine Blasey-Ford. Ford didn’t vague tweet for months. Ford didn’t want to go public - she wrote a letter to make Dianne Feinstein aware of concerns about Kavanaugh and was outed when none other than Ryan Grimm wrote an article about that letter. Ford didn’t tweet out any “it’s all about timing, tic toc” nonsense.

A properly demure and meek woman who knows her place. Nice, I like it. 

Quote

Reade being interviewed by Megyn Kelly would be like Biden being interviewed by Matt Lauer or Charlie Rose on this situation.

Literally and directly equating a sexual harassment victim with sexual assailants.

8 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

You asked if there is any “evidence” Reade is a Bernie supporter. I answered by directing you to her personal and public Twitter account, which was riddled with pro-Bernie posts and hashtags during the primary. 

Yes, and I agreed that Twitter participation (which is basically the center of the universe to many posters here) can indicate "ardent" support.

I followed that agreement up with difficulty believing that Twitter activity was a sufficient indicator of a dedication to Bernie that would motivate this level of action.

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The problem here is the same as with Obama’s birth certificate. It’s never enough. There’s a “long form” version that’s not being disclosed. Where are the electronic records, etc etc etc. Biden is doing the right thing by unequivocally denying and not allowing for some sideshow hunt for documents that don’t exist - or if they do, they don’t reference anything sexual anyways 

Yes, the right play is to deny the woman's accusations fully and completely because our society is set up to reward men for doing that. In terms of his near-term ambitions, Biden is doing the smart play as are the Democrats and their mouthpieces in media.

Deny.

Don't talk about it, let the centuries of patriarchy we have built do its job.

Win.

1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

No matter how much disclosure happens on this Tara Reade nonsense it will never be enough.

This is true, but perhaps not in the direction you're aiming.

[GW Hayduke 1950]

We know Reade changed her story from “Joe made me uncomfortable. No sexual misconduct” for 26 years to “Joe penetrated me” for the last few months. 

We know she changed from praising Biden up until 2018. What changed in 2018 for her to begin to dislike Biden?

We know she changed her story about why she left DC from “to be with her husband” to “she was sick of American imperialism” in 2018 to “Biden blacklisted” in 2019. Again, why this change?

However, do we know whether she ever changed her story about Putin? Does she still “like him a lot with his shirt off?” Does she still think Putin is “intoxicating to American women?” What about his “alluring combination of strength with gentleness?” Does she still think “putin’s Genius is his judo ability?”

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

Just curious, is there anything that could possibly emerge that would cause you to think Biden didn’t do it?

[tantric superman 4667]

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How does this disenfranchise voters? They can still vote for Joe.

It disenfranchises voters because if the matter had been vetted earlier, there may have been another Dem who would have gotten the nomination.  Instead, they dropped out.  And they won't be on the ballot.