Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TellyKNeasuss said:
I'm not begging the question; you never asked it.
Click to expand...

That's not what begging the question means. The term is confusing at face value, but what it means is that you're building your argument on assumption you haven't actually proven.

You're "begging" me to pretend that you've answered the question of pantyhose in the way needed to support your argument. I'm telling you I'm not going to pretend. You're actually going to have to show that she was wearing pantyhose, before you start arguing that Biden couldn't have torn them or stretched them or whatever you imagine he couldn't have done with them.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
It's "couldn't", not "wouldn't". As in it would have been physically impossible for what she described to have happened if she was dressed the way women in her position would have normally dressed at the time. Obviously not a beyond a reasonable doubt argument, but it's one more reason to have some doubt about her story.
Click to expand...

She has described not having stockings on.

What else could have physically prevented it?
 
wareyin said:
That is an excellent example of biased reporters attempting to smear people because of the actions of other people they're associated with. This is brought forth as an example of the type of thing SuburbanTurkey was against, right?

eta: it's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon smearing, actually. Biden is bad because he hired Dodd who is bad because he associated with Ted Kennedy who did these 2 things. Also Hillary Clinton endorsing Biden is somehow bad for women too.
Click to expand...
The "candidates are responsible for what their supporters do" campaign can't make that argument, though.

Or is it only supporters, but not employees (even though there is more control over the latter)?
 
I'm curious how the records of a public office get sealed up at a University, not to be seen until post-retirement.

Not a partisan concern, I take the same stand on Trump's taxes, NDAs, business concerns, etc.
 
Puppycow said:
So last year she told The Washington Post that she quit her job because Biden's staff bullied her, and specifically said he wasn't the reason, it was the people around him?

(actual article behind a paywall, unfortunately.)
Click to expand...

“This is what I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him who keep covering for him,” she told The Post at the time. She added: “For instance, he should have known what was happening to me … Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff.”
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/

Here's the sex scene from her father's book: https://twitter.com/SallyAlbright/status/1255753538518515717/photo/1

OK, now put your dick away.


From the same WaPo article:

Delphic Oracle said:
I'm curious how the records of a public office get sealed up at a University, not to be seen until post-retirement.
Click to expand...

Reade also says there is a paper trail, but journalists have been unable to locate a central piece of that. She said she filed a complaint with a congressional human resources office about her treatment in Biden’s office — but not about the assault allegation — in 1993. She said she does not have a copy of the complaint, and The Post could find no record of it. The office she probably would have filed a complaint with has since morphed into a different office. It’s possible that corroborating evidence of the complaint could be found at Biden’s archive at the University of Delaware, but the university said these papers will be sealed until two years after Biden retires from public life — unless he were willing to release them.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
That's not what begging the question means. The term is confusing at face value, but what it means is that you're building your argument on assumption you haven't actually proven.

You're "begging" me to pretend that you've answered the question of pantyhose in the way needed to support your argument. I'm telling you I'm not going to pretend. You're actually going to have to show that she was wearing pantyhose, before you start arguing that Biden couldn't have torn them or stretched them or whatever you imagine he couldn't have done with them.
Click to expand...

You seem confused. The claim was not that she was wearing pantyhose. The claim was that had she been dressed in normal office wear at the time, the attack as she described it would not have been able to occur. Your response has been that pantyhose do nothing to inhibit digital penetration. Having some experience with women who wear pantyhose, I find your claim to be either extremely naive (as in you've never tried such a thing even with a willing partner) or disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
That's not what begging the question means. The term is confusing at face value, but what it means is that you're building your argument on assumption you haven't actually proven.

You're "begging" me to pretend that you've answered the question of pantyhose in the way needed to support your argument. I'm telling you I'm not going to pretend. You're actually going to have to show that she was wearing pantyhose, before you start arguing that Biden couldn't have torn them or stretched them or whatever you imagine he couldn't have done with them.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that Biden couldn't have torn the pantyhose. I only stated that you're making an assumption based on evidence that has not been presented, since Ms. Reade has never stated that Biden tore her pantyhose. In fact, you recently stated that Ms. Reade claimed to have not worn pantyhose. So you appear to be arguing both that Biden tore Ms. Reade's pantyhose and that Ms. Reade wasn't wearing pantyhose. Maybe you should figure out your own position before you try to attack mine.
 
Let's skip the song and dance here.

Which article of clothing was it that is believed would have stopped this?

A few points totally devoid of ethical consideration to ponder:

Right or wrong, bringing up what a woman was wearing in this kind of discussion is not workable for political reasons.

The entire response to this has been backwards. Invite her to be as expansive and detailed as possible on every media platform possible. If she's lying, she will mess up. It basically recreates the tactic of investigators of conducting multiple interviews with the same questions over and over.

It also means this will slow-drip for months, which leaves a more lasting impression than a big burst of salaciousness that falls apart after a few weeks. It threatens to keep it in the public consciousness until closer to the election date.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I'm curious how the records of a public office get sealed up at a University, not to be seen until post-retirement.

Not a partisan concern, I take the same stand on Trump's taxes, NDAs, business concerns, etc.
Click to expand...

Trump’s taxes, NDAs, business concerns, etc. are not records of a public office, just as Obama’s college transcripts aren’t. They may be of interest to the public, but that doesn’t make them records of a public office.
 
Ziggurat said:
Trump’s taxes, NDAs, business concerns, etc. are not records of a public office, just as Obama’s college transcripts aren’t. They may be of interest to the public, but that doesn’t make them records of a public office.
Click to expand...

I want scrutiny of my candidates. A pattern of transparency would be nice.

But that's a philosophical point, I suppose.

Along with a reply basically detailing a literal description of how those records came to reside outside of a federal records organ of some kind, I feel like my point was missed entirely.

As we both agree, they are records of a public office.

Why are they not held by Congress itself and available for FOIA?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
She has described not having stockings on.

What else could have physically prevented it?
Click to expand...

" She said she was delivering Biden a gym bag somewhere in the Capitol area (which has multiple buildings) but doesn’t remember exactly where. She said Biden pinned her against a wall, reached under her skirt (she said she wasn’t wearing any stockings) and pushed his fingers inside her."

Why should we believe she was at work in on the hill wearing a skirt but no pantyhose ?

That's not how young professional staffers dressed back then.

One more red flag.
 
wareyin said:
Is it largely semantics whether you are fired or you quit, or is almost nobody actually fired? I know plenty of people who have been fired from jobs over the years. As in "You're Fired" (hey, some jerk should make a TV show based around that as a catchphrase, maybe that could lead to a political career!) not "give me your letter of resignation." I don't doubt that you don't know any, but your experiences aren't universal.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear: I'm not the one who is requiring the world conform to their limited experiences. I'm merely pointing out that this may not conform to your experience but that it would not be odd for others.


We're discussing Reade's various claims here. In one, she said she had nothing on under her skirt. In another, she claims he pushed aside her underwear. I get that you really want them both to be true, but as that's your stance I think it's on you to somehow make them fit, not me to prove they don't. After you get done with those mental gymnastics, maybe we can get to explaining her explicit denial that the acts towards her were sexual before claiming he sexually assaulted her.

edited to add: The statement that she was wearing nothing was made in this thread back on page 27, but appears to have been a mistake in transcription. I retract that one.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Humans are weird, even when they only want someone else to be wrong.
Click to expand...

No, humans are weird all the damn time, but especially under stress.


Zero tolerance for being "dismissive" of personal boundaries? Yeah, I can see how such black and white thinking makes someone think touching shoulders is the same as finger-banging. I think most people see a pretty clear difference, though.
Click to expand...

Yes, we disagree on who is more likely to be caught up in such issues. When I see a teacher who is hugging all over the preteen girls in his class I ask my kid to be moved to another class. Others think he is just affectionate. We differ. I'm not trying to change your mind on that. But understand that you will have trouble changing my impression, too.
 
Puppycow said:
So last year she told The Washington Post that she quit her job because Biden's staff bullied her, and specifically said he wasn't the reason, it was the people around him?

(actual article behind a paywall, unfortunately.)
Click to expand...

Pro tip: If you clear your cookies and history, you can usually access a few articles from the Post (and many other publications with a paywall). When you hit the wall, you clear them again and the counter resets. If you use more than one browser, you can clear one and keep your history in the other(s). Also, if you search for the headline, you will often find other outlets that have picked up the original story.

Like here:
https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/worl...-emerges-in-campaign-draws-denial/ar-BB12wE57
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
I want scrutiny of my candidates. A pattern of transparency would be nice.

But that's a philosophical point, I suppose.

Along with a reply basically detailing a literal description of how those records came to reside outside of a federal records organ of some kind, I feel like my point was missed entirely.

As we both agree, they are records of a public office.

Why are they not held by Congress itself and available for FOIA?
Click to expand...

I also would like to know why the government wouldn't have the records.

However, personnel records are not often available under FOIA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom