Biden for President?

[Bob001]

I didn't know women with checkered pasts couldn't be victims of crimes. That's a nice silver lining, I guess.

Seriously, she had a spat with her pseudo-employer over some unpaid bills. Oh lord, she hid a car from the repo man, bring the fainting couches!

Certainly anybody can be assaulted. But when somebody with a history of lies and fraud and contradictory claims says something that itself is questionable on its face, increased scrutiny is not unreasonable.

 

[xjx388]

What are you even trying to say? How do you think Biden compares to Trump?

Favorably.

Thousands of people are dead, and many thousands more will die, because Trump continues to lie to the country and himself about the coronavirus crisis. This guy won't even wear a mask in crowds because he doesn't like how it looks. You think that's anythng like Biden's occasionally tangled speech?

Nope.

I am not making an argument that Biden is unfit, dangerous, unqualified, etc. I am wondering why people who have made such arguments against Trump, citing certain behavior patterns, don't also make the same arguments against Biden. I think the answer is simple: Bias.

And you keep insisting that the shrinks shouldn't say Trump's an obvious lunatic, but you don't claim he's not.

You are right. I do think that whether or not he is a lunatic is irrelevant. What is relevant is the actions/behavior of the person in question.

Certainly anybody can be assaulted. But when somebody with a history of lies and fraud and contradictory claims says something that itself is questionable on its face, increased scrutiny is not unreasonable.

#hertoo?

 

[Bob001]

....
I am not making an argument that Biden is unfit, dangerous, unqualified, etc. I am wondering why people who have made such arguments against Trump, citing certain behavior patterns, don't also make the same arguments against Biden. I think the answer is simple: Bias.

You are right. I do think that whether or not he is a lunatic is irrelevant. What is relevant is the actions/behavior of the person in question.

#hertoo?

Maybe it's because Biden doesn't behave like Trump and he never has? If there's bias, it's toward the facts. And #metoo means that every allegation must be taken seriously and investigated fully, not that it should be swallowed blindly.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, I mean, a lot of women that get sexually assaulted have made mistakes in their lives and therefore have big credibility issues.

#I’mwithStacy
#Onlybelievetheperfectwomen

Nice try but your arrow misses the bull's eye.

There are multiple reasons to suspect Reade's claim which have been discussed in this thread. You are ignoring those. When there is no witness and no forensic evidence to the alleged assault then the credibility of the accuser has a major role. If her history contains incidents of fraud, theft, lying and manipulation then it cannot be just hand waved away. If her accusations include claims of an official submitted report of harassment and no such report can be found, that goes to her credibility. If she claims she reported the harassment to three staffers and all three deny this ever occurred, that goes to her credibility. If she praised Biden several times over the years for his work on combating sexual assault after this alleged sexual assault, that goes to her credibility. If she changed her story about why she left Biden's office from leaving on her own to being fired, that goes to her credibility. If her about face from praising Biden for his work on fighting sexual assault to condemning him coincided with her supporting Sanders during the primaries, that goes to her credibility. If Reade claims she didn't go to the press about being assaulted by Biden was 'out of respect' for him, that goes to her credibility.

All women should be heard, but that does not mean all allegations are true. And the more I learn of Reade, the more her story does not ring true.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There seemed to be quite a few people who remembered her and the events immediately after. I suspect the "something irrelevant" part there. Honestly, if it turns out that this is true, then Biden and the press who support him look hilariously incompetent.

Because they didn't immediately trash the woman making allegations?

Or because maybe Biden said leave it to the press to investigate?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do.

We have a candidate who is accused of sexual assault, lies, don't speak well. Not a word from those stalwart defenders of The People of America the World.

OTOH, we don't ever stop hearing about every. single. one. of Trump's gaffes, lies and other offenses and how it's yet another sign that he is mentally ill.

So yes: I think it is relevent and interesting to note this in a thread about Joe Biden's Presidential candidacy.

And let me be clear: I don't really care if Joe Biden is mentally ill and I'm not saying that he is. It's just very interesting to me that one candidate's flaws are brushed off and the same kinds of flaws in another are signs of the apocalypse.

If you go back in that thread you will see it was thoroughly debunked that this was any kind of slippery slope at all. Accusing other people who don't have a mental pathology is irrelevant nonsense.

Trump has a mental pathology. Other flawed politicians clearly do not reach any level of personality disorders.

You should refresh your memory before trying to start a bogus revisitation of a debunked argument here.

 

[xjx388]

Nice try but your arrow misses the bull's eye.

There are multiple reasons to suspect Reade's claim which have been discussed in this thread. You are ignoring those. When there is no witness and no forensic evidence to the alleged assault then the credibility of the accuser has a major role.

Sure, unless you are Brett Kavanaugh.

If her history contains incidents of fraud, theft, lying and manipulation then it cannot be just hand waved away.

Why not? What does it matter who she is or what she might have done? What matters is her accusation and whether or not there is supporting evidence. There is none here so it really means nothing in my opinion. Very much like Kavanaugh's accuser. I just wonder why all the brouhaha about K. Should have been a big nothing, no?
But it wasn't; there were calls for him to withdraw from nomination. Calls to block his confirmation. Calls to impeach him after. It's just funny that the people calling for that are now pretty silent.

If her accusations include claims of an official submitted report of harassment and no such report can be found, that goes to her credibility. If she claims she reported the harassment to three staffers and all three deny this ever occurred, that goes to her credibility. If she praised Biden several times over the years for his work on combating sexual assault after this alleged sexual assault, that goes to her credibility. If she changed her story about why she left Biden's office from leaving on her own to being fired, that goes to her credibility. If her about face from praising Biden for his work on fighting sexual assault to condemning him coincided with her supporting Sanders during the primaries, that goes to her credibility. If Reade claims she didn't go to the press about being assaulted by Biden was 'out of respect' for him, that goes to her credibility.

Like I said, we can find women who have actually been sexually assaulted who have done shady things in their lives. We can find women who continued to have a close relationship with their assaulter. We can find people who lie for the person who did it. We can find instances of buried reports. So what?

All women should be heard, but that does not mean all allegations are true. And the more I learn of Reade, the more her story does not ring true.

Why did K's accuser's story "ring true," and this one does not?

 

[xjx388]

If you go back in that thread you will see it was thoroughly debunked that this was any kind of slippery slope at all. Accusing other people who don't have a mental pathology is irrelevant nonsense.

Trump has a mental pathology. Other flawed politicians clearly do not reach any level of personality disorders.

You should refresh your memory before trying to start a bogus revisitation of a debunked argument here.

Nothing was debunked. You disagree, and that's fine; but, it's just another illustration of the special pleading involved in the whole thing.

Biden lies. He makes stories up to make himself sound better. He has an issue with touching women in inappropriate ways. He may have sexually assaulted someone. He can't speak coherently sometimes. Why doesn't that make you go, Hmmmmm.....

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It seems a bit unlikely that the Biden camp wouldn't have known about this, or that the press wouldn't have done a basic background check.

The "Biden camp" has seemed to avoid getting involved in a mud-slinging battle. If they know about it, not using it would not be inconsistent with the strategy that they're using.

As for the press, no it isn't unlikely. We still have no record of anyone from the news media contacting Ms. Reade's ex-husband or any of her half-siblings. Apparently, no one from the news media ever bothered to research on their own whether the Senate would be allowed to release any information about harassment charges that Ms. Reade claimed to be filed (even though they should have known that it was unlikely that information could be released).

 

[shuttlt]

Because they didn't immediately trash the woman making allegations?

It shows remarkable restraint if they knew and could prove she was lying and decided to keep quiet, a basic checks on her could reveal this and they were never made. If it turns out that this was done out of concern for her, or some kind of taking the high road thing I would honestly pause to reconsider a lot of things.

Or because maybe Biden said leave it to the press to investigate?

So, the presidential campaign is so chill that, even though they could look into the details of the former employee of their candidate whose accusations are undermining their campaign, they decide to assume other people will? Those other people then spend weeks not looking into it either to the extent that it's only now that somebody has done a background check on her? I'm not saying that that isn't what happened, but.... is The Dude from The Big Lebowski running Biden's campaign?

My money is on either its false, or the media/biden have been sitting on this revelation for some reason.

 

[shuttlt]

The "Biden camp" has seemed to avoid getting involved in a mud-slinging battle. If they know about it, not using it would not be inconsistent with the strategy that they're using.

I find it hard to believe, but OK.

As for the press, no it isn't unlikely. We still have no record of anyone from the news media contacting Ms. Reade's ex-husband or any of her half-siblings. Apparently, no one from the news media ever bothered to research on their own whether the Senate would be allowed to release any information about harassment charges that Ms. Reade claimed to be filed (even though they should have known that it was unlikely that information could be released).

If this is true, then they are shockingly incurious and if that is the case it makes the Biden campaigns decision to let the press look into Reade for them seem kind of high risk.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I find it hard to believe, but OK.

If this is true, then they are shockingly incurious and if that is the case it makes the Biden campaigns decision to let the press look into Reade for them seem kind of high risk.

I don't see the press in general doing a lot of investigative reporting these days. It seems that they mostly report what the people involved in a story have said. With this story, they can generate a lot of clicks without putting any effort into investigating.

That being said, noticing that the listing is for a Tara Reade makes me question the authenticity.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't see the press in general doing a lot of investigative reporting these days. It seems that they mostly report what the people involved in a story have said. With this story, they can generate a lot of clicks without putting any effort into investigating.

That being said, noticing that the listing is for a Tara Reade makes me question the authenticity.

Indeed, the amount of stories on social media that are based on fake screencaps is a lot.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sure, unless you are Brett Kavanaugh.

Whataboutism. We're discussing Reade, not Blasey-Ford. But anyhoooo....if B-Ford had the same credibility issues as Reade, I'd have taken her allegations with a huge pinch of salt, too.

Why not? What does it matter who she is or what she might have done?

Because, as already explained....it goes to credibility which you seem to think is entirely irrelevant.

What matters is her accusation and whether or not there is supporting evidence. There is none here so it really means nothing in my opinion.

Then why make such a big stink about it?

Very much like Kavanaugh's accuser. I just wonder why all the brouhaha about K. Should have been a big nothing, no? But it wasn't; there were calls for him to withdraw from nomination. Calls to block his confirmation. Calls to impeach him after. It's just funny that the people calling for that are now pretty silent.

No, not like B-Ford's case at all. There was more evidence supporting her claim than Reade's. For example, her therapist's notes, Kavanaugh's calendar, and his yearbook showing he was a liar and drank to excess which supported B-Ford's claims of that weekend.

Like I said, we can find women who have actually been sexually assaulted who have done shady things in their lives. We can find women who continued to have a close relationship with their assaulter. We can find people who lie for the person who did it. We can find instances of buried reports. So what?

Women who continue to have a close relationship with their assaulter are not women who haven't seen him in decades. They are women who continue for whatever reasons to interact with them. Nor do they go on twitter and PRAISE him for the work he's doing on combating sexual assault.

Women who lie for their assaulter do so for various reasons such as they fear being hurt again because they are in a relationship with him (abusive husbands/boyfriends) or out of a distorted idea of what love is, etc. That is not the case for Reade.

As for 'buried reports', this would require removing it from the National Archives. Just how easily do you think this is to do?

Why did K's accuser's story "ring true," and this one does not?

Already addressed.

Like I said, your argument misses the bull's eye. By a wide margin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nothing was debunked. You disagree, and that's fine; but, it's just another illustration of the special pleading involved in the whole thing.

Biden lies. He makes stories up to make himself sound better. He has an issue with touching women in inappropriate ways. He may have sexually assaulted someone. He can't speak coherently sometimes. Why doesn't that make you go, Hmmmmm.....

Pretty much everyone in the thread explained why you had this bogus slippery slope argument. I don't recall you made your case to anyone. And now here you are trying to make the same failed argument again.

 

[Stacyhs]

Biden lies. He makes stories up to make himself sound better. He has an issue with touching women in inappropriate ways. He may have sexually assaulted someone. He can't speak coherently sometimes. Why doesn't that make you go, Hmmmmm.....

Because he hasn't been examined by a mental health professional in person.

 

[xjx388]

Whataboutism. We're discussing Reade, not Blasey-Ford. But anyhoooo....if B-Ford had the same credibility issues as Reade, I'd have taken her allegations with a huge pinch of salt, too.

Easy to say; hard to prove. This isn’t “whataboutism,” it’s comparing analogous situations. I see clear bias in who gets a big deal made about accusations of sexual assault against them.

Because, as already explained....it goes to credibility which you seem to think is entirely irrelevant.

Yes, I do, because “credibility” is incredibly subjective. We should be concerned with evidence, not feelings. An accusation should have evidence in the form of physical evidence. If we don’t have that, we have nothing to make a big deal about. That was true with K and it’s true with Biden.

Then why make such a big stink about it?

I’m not. But others make a big stink in certain cases that are very similar. I just wondered what their criteria was for stink-making. Your explanations sound weak to me. I think it’s bias.

No, not like B-Ford's case at all. There was more evidence supporting her claim than Reade's. For example, her therapist's notes, Kavanaugh's calendar, and his yearbook showing he was a liar and drank to excess which supported B-Ford's claims of that weekend.

That’s not evidence of rape or sexual assault.

Women who continue to have a close relationship with their assaulter are not women who haven't seen him in decades. They are women who continue for whatever reasons to interact with them. Nor do they go on twitter and PRAISE him for the work he's doing on combating sexual assault.

Women who lie for their assaulter do so for various reasons such as they fear being hurt again because they are in a relationship with him (abusive husbands/boyfriends) or out of a distorted idea of what love is, etc. That is not the case for Reade.

What motivates the behavior of people who have suffered a sexual assault is way more complex than you indicate here. It’s paradoxical and complex, sometimes.

As for 'buried reports', this would require removing it from the National Archives. Just how easily do you think this is to do?

Not as easy as simply “misplacing” it instead of filing it.

 

[xjx388]

Because he hasn't been examined by a mental health professional in person.

Excellent reason. I just wish it applied no matter the letter after someone’s name.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Biden lies. He makes stories up to make himself sound better. He has an issue with touching women in inappropriate ways. He may have sexually assaulted someone. He can't speak coherently sometimes. Why doesn't that make you go, Hmmmmm.....

It does make me go, Hmmmmm..... Doesn't matter if it is true or not, he is now tainted and should withdraw immediately. And he was their best candidate!

Democrats should just let Trump win uncontested. By November the virus will have wreaked so much havoc that voting will be impossible anyway, so we might as well let Trump declare himself president for life (assuming he is still alive at that point).

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Whataboutism. We're discussing Reade, not Blasey-Ford. But anyhoooo....if B-Ford had the same credibility issues as Reade, I'd have taken her allegations with a huge pinch of salt, too.

Easy to say; hard to prove. This isn’t “whataboutism,” it’s comparing analogous situations. I see clear bias in who gets a big deal made about accusations of sexual assault against them.

I think I know better how I'd have seen B-F than you do.
Sure it's 'whataboutism': bringing up Brett Kavanaugh is resorting to "a tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else's (mis)conduct".

Because, as already explained....it goes to credibility which you seem to think is entirely irrelevant.

Yes, I do, because “credibility” is incredibly subjective. We should be concerned with evidence, not feelings. An accusation should have evidence in the form of physical evidence. If we don’t have that, we have nothing to make a big deal about. That was true with K and it’s true with Biden.
I’m not.

Credibility can certainly be subjective but when someone has a long history of lying, committing fraud and theft on multiple occasions, I don't think it's illogical to conclude that person may be a liar and a thief.

Not all crimes have physical evidence. Witnesses are not physical evidence of the crime itself.

Then why make such a big stink about it?

I'm not. But others make a big stink in certain cases that are very similar. I just wondered what their criteria was for stink-making. Your explanations sound weak to me. I think it’s bias.

Yes, you are. You keep bringing it up. Your excuses sound weak to me. I think it's bias.

No, not like B-Ford's case at all. There was more evidence supporting her claim than Reade's. For example, her therapist's notes, Kavanaugh's calendar, and his yearbook showing he was a liar and drank to excess which supported B-Ford's claims of that weekend.

That’s not evidence of rape or sexual assault.

It's evidence that lends credibility to the accuser's claim and helps to discredit Kavanaugh. For example, the terms "boofing" and "Devil's Triangle in his yearbook made no sense in the context that K claimed. They were common terms used at that time and certainly NOT in the way K claimed. He was lying. Oh, but I forget, credibility is irrelevant to you.

Women who continue to have a close relationship with their assaulter are not women who haven't seen him in decades. They are women who continue for whatever reasons to interact with them. Nor do they go on twitter and PRAISE him for the work he's doing on combating sexual assault.

Women who lie for their assaulter do so for various reasons such as they fear being hurt again because they are in a relationship with him (abusive husbands/boyfriends) or out of a distorted idea of what love is, etc. That is not the case for Reade

What motivates the behavior of people who have suffered a sexual assault is way more complex than you indicate here. It’s paradoxical and complex, sometimes.

It includes exactly what I indicated here. Regardless, you haven't denied that Reade's circumstances were not those you presented .

As for 'buried reports', this would require removing it from the National Archives. Just how easily do you think this is to do?

Not as easy as simply “misplacing” it instead of filing it.

So now you want to imply that it was never filed in the first place, do you? Someone in the Senate personnel office hushed it all up? And the three staffers who deny she ever complained to them were all in on it, too.