Biden for President?

[johnny karate]

Biden lies too. Why isn’t that used against him?

What has Biden lied about regarding this allegation?

 

[johnny karate]

Well, there are two candidates: one is a dangerous, unhinged moron who is being accused of sexual assault by 20 women, the other is a moderately competent career politician who is accused of sexual assault by one woman. Well, I guess that's a hard choice then

And let’s not forget, one of those candidates hasn’t brought this country to the brink of destruction through his truly epic incompetence and venality.

 

[xjx388]

Clearly it is NOT the same. Biden has more defenders because the accusation against him is so much more flimsy than that against Kavanaugh. As I've shown before.

You’ve shown it to your own satisfaction. I see the two situations as the same: 1)Accusations of impropriety decades ago, raised only when the accused is nominated to high office. 2)No evidence of the actual act, so it’s impossible to prove one way or the other. 3)No witnesses to directly corroborate. What we are left with is basically words: hers and his.

It's not about discrediting the victim; it's determining if her accusations are credible. When there is no physical evidence or witnesses to support the accusations, the victim's credibility comes very much into play. If the accuser has a history of making false allegations or lying or other dishonest behavior it matters.

I disagree. When there is no evidence and no possibility of getting evidence, we shouldn’t give the accusation much weight. We shouldn’t play this impossible game of Credibility Clue.

No, the #metoo movement is about hearing the victim and taking the accusations seriously. It is not about just blindly believing her.

What does, “take the accusations seriously,” actually mean, though? It sounds like an empty platitude. It sounds like a dangerous thing when there’s no evidence, the accusations were from decades ago and deciding who to take seriously comes down to subjective assessments of credibility, aka bias.

It's not just being dismissed. It's being looked into.

By who? The Court of Public Opinion with the media and political parties as the counsel doesn’t seem like a particularly good way of investigating this.

And so far, there is not much, if anything, to support her accusations. On the other hand, there is evidence of her changing her story, giving various accounts, and being a liar and a thief.

Exactly why this accusation should have been dismissed and left alone. “Take them all seriously” is a really bad policy when they all don’t warrant being taken seriously.

So what would you suggest? Just believe her and ruin a man who has served this country for 50 years even though there is virtually nothing to support her story of being sexually assaulted?

I suggest basically ignoring it. No way to determine the truth? Don’t take it seriously. It’s too easy to make an accusation when you don’t have to back it up. I felt the same way in the Kavanaugh case and I feel that way now.

Oh, come on! It has been and in this very thread. But his "lies" do not constitute a crime.

But supposedly, they are a disqualifying trait in a President and one of the signs of dangerous mental illness. That’s what I heard...a lot of people are saying that.

Sure. It's not impossible that the Senate Personnel office didn't file the complaint. It's also possible that the three staffers are lying. It's also possible that Reade is a Russian agent. But are any of these probable? No.

I don’t see it as particularly improbable. If we are going to take this thing seriously at all (I don’t think we should) then one of our problems is going to be varying views of what is “probable.” And, as illustrated in this thread, one’s assessment of such things is going to depend on one’s biases.

 

[Stacyhs]

You’ve shown it to your own satisfaction. I see the two situations as the same: 1)Accusations of impropriety decades ago, raised only when the accused is nominated to high office. 2)No evidence of the actual act, so it’s impossible to prove one way or the other. 3)No witnesses to directly corroborate. What we are left with is basically words: hers and his.

I disagree. When there is no evidence and no possibility of getting evidence, we shouldn’t give the accusation much weight. We shouldn’t play this impossible game of Credibility Clue.

You see it as you see it. It's apparent nothing I or anyone else say will change that. You think the credibility of the accuser means nothing. I do.

What does, “take the accusations seriously,” actually mean, though? It sounds like an empty platitude. It sounds like a dangerous thing when there’s no evidence, the accusations were from decades ago and deciding who to take seriously comes down to subjective assessments of credibility, aka bias.

Oh, come on. Now I know you're just playing games. Really? Taking an accusation of sexual assault seriously is an 'empty platitude'? If I have to explain what is meant by 'taking something seriously' you'll next be asking me what I mean by 'take', 'the', 'accusations' and 'seriously'

By who? The Court of Public Opinion with the media and political parties as the counsel doesn’t seem like a particularly good way of investigating this. Exactly why this accusation should have been dismissed and left alone. “Take them all seriously” is a really bad policy when they all don’t warrant being taken seriously.

I suggest basically ignoring it. No way to determine the truth? Don’t take it seriously. It’s too easy to make an accusation when you don’t have to back it up. I felt the same way in the Kavanaugh case and I feel that way now.

So an ex-staffer makes public allegations of sexual assault against an assumed presidential nominee and it should just have been ignored? A woman makes an allegation of rape against a Supreme Court nominee and that should just be ignored? Wow.

But supposedly, they are a disqualifying trait in a President and one of the signs of dangerous mental illness. That’s what I heard...a lot of people are saying that.

If you feel the need to keep pushing your "but the Goldwater Rule' pet topic head on back to the "Trump has a mental illness" thread. I got off that merry-go-round some time back.

I don’t see it as particularly improbable. If we are going to take this thing seriously at all (I don’t think we should) then one of our problems is going to be varying views of what is “probable.” And, as illustrated in this thread, one’s assessment of such things is going to depend on one’s biases.

Of course you don't.

Frankly, this has turned into an "energy vampire" topic with you. I'm hanging some garlic on the door and putting crosses on the windows. Toodles.

 

[Bob001]

This one also looks fake. There are enough reasons to question her credibility without having to make stuff up.

I dunno if it's fake. It looks like a fake would require some cutting-and-pasting. But I note that it's purportedly signed by a specific official who provides her phone number. It would be easy to find out whether it's authentic.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I dunno if it's fake. It looks like a fake would require some cutting-and-pasting. But I note that it's purportedly signed by a specific official who provides her phone number. It would be easy to find out whether it's authentic.

I'm thinking that an official record would not list her name as Tara Reade.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm thinking that an official record would not list her name as Tara Reade.

Why? It lists it as Reade, Tara.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is why we must not just accept every allegation of sexual assault/harassment but must take it seriously by investigating it:

There’s a danger in blind acceptance of every sexual assault allegation. An example of that risk played out last weekend when Eva Murry, the niece of failed Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, charged Joe Biden with making a sexually explicit comment about her breasts when she was 14. Murry said that the harassment happened when the two met at Delaware’s annual First State Gridiron Dinner & Show in 2008.

Murry’s allegation was first made in a Facebook posting on April 8, the day her favored candidate, Bernie Sanders, ended his presidential campaign. This was not a he said/she said case; Murry was backed-up by O’Donnell who claimed to personally witness the sexual harassment. Given O’Donnell’s “eyewitness” corroboration, Murry’s allegation is arguably much stronger than Reade’s.

Murry’s claim against Biden was also accompanied by support from friends and family who went on the record to say Murry told them of Biden’s sexual harassment soon after it occurred. There was even a tweet from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s former deputy policy coordinator commending Murry’s “bravery, and for helping other women potentially come forward.”

The problem is that a representative of the Gridiron event has now gone on record saying Biden did not attend the 2008 dinner. And Fox News obtained a copy of Biden’s schedule for that day, which shows an aide went in Biden’s place because the senator was recovering from surgery.

Murry’s allegation was buttressed by an “eyewitness,” family and friends — but it seems to have never happened. When O’Donnell was confronted with this damning rebuttal, she said Biden must have harassed her niece at the 2007 event, and upped the ante by saying that was even worse because Murry was younger. But Biden’s schedule shows he was campaigning in Iowa and missed the 2007 event as well. Reporting in Politico confirms Biden was not at the 2007 event where the alleged sexual harassment occurred.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-20200508-gbf3lyw6n5hhjhad36fm25p3oq-story.html

 

[Bob001]

This is why we must not just accept every allegation of sexual assault/harassment but must take it seriously by investigating it:

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-20200508-gbf3lyw6n5hhjhad36fm25p3oq-story.html

This gets into the area of false memory. It's undisputed that people can sincerely believe that they have experienced or observed events that never occurred, and with repetition the memory grows stronger. They're not lying, but they are still wrong.
.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And let’s not forget, one of those candidates hasn’t brought this country to the brink of destruction through his truly epic incompetence and venality.

Yes, it's only fair he be given the chance.

 

[Stacyhs]

For those who think credibility is not important in a sexual assault allegation:

8 ELEMENTS OF CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT IN AN INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS

... the importance of determining credibility when someone is being accused of sexual harassment cannot be overstated.

...the investigator must interview witnesses and determine whether or not each witness is believable. After all, situations, where witnesses helped the alleged victim fabricate a sexual harassment claim are not unheard of.

Credibility: The Most Important Factor in Sex Crimes Cases

Sex crimes are emotional cases, and jurors often sympathize with the alleged victim. To defend you against these allegations, your attorney will want to show that the alleged victim:

Has changed his or her story over the course of the case,
Has a history of lying or of criminal activity, or
Has motivation to lie in this particular case

Tara Reade meets all three of these.

 

[Bob001]

This is why we must not just accept every allegation of sexual assault/harassment but must take it seriously by investigating it:

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-20200508-gbf3lyw6n5hhjhad36fm25p3oq-story.html

Also from your link:

It should not be this way. Knee-jerk acceptance of uninvestigated sexual assault allegations can ruin innocent men. More important, from #MeToo’s perspective, it only takes one publicized false allegation to undercut years of the movement’s progress and throw into question legitimate allegations of sexual assault for years to come.

In order for the #MeToo movement to remain viable for the long-haul, it must recalibrate. Statistics show that the vast majority of sexual assault allegations are truthful. This means believing women who say they have been assaulted is a reasonable default. But that cannot be where things end.

After reading the story it seems pretty clear that this particular "memory" was an act of malicious fraud by a political opponent. Chances are it isn't -- and won't be -- the only one.

 

[Stacyhs]

This gets into the area of false memory. It's undisputed that people can sincerely believe that they have experienced or observed events that never occurred, and with repetition the memory grows stronger. They're not lying, but they are still wrong.
.

Absolutely true. I know I have had false memories and I believe so has everyone. In particular is an event in my childhood when I ate all the pecans off my dad's pecan pie. One day, my mother, sister and I were laughing about it. What was surprising to all of us is that we all had a completely different memory of where and when it occurred. For me, it was when I was about 8 in TN, for my sister, it was in WA when I was 12, and my mother remembered it happening in CA when I was 13 or 14. And all of us were sure we were right.

 

[Craig4]

For those who think credibility is not important in a sexual assault allegation:










Tara Reade meets all three of these.

I was particularly disgusted by seeing the CNN story where she said Biden should drop out because of character. I'm not interested in what someone who steals from animal rescue organizations and supports Putin thinks about character. If you're going to talk about character, you should make sure yours isn't at the level of something stuck to my shoe in a cow pasture.

 

[Bob001]

Absolutely true. I know I have had false memories and I believe so has everyone. In particular is an event in my childhood when I ate all the pecans off my dad's pecan pie. One day, my mother, sister and I were laughing about it. What was surprising to all of us is that we all had a completely different memory of where and when it occurred. For me, it was when I was about 8 in TN, for my sister, it was in WA when I was 12, and my mother remembered it happening in CA when I was 13 or 14. And all of us were sure we were right.

Maybe you grabbed all the pecans off all the pies?

More seriously, that's something an 8-year-old would be more likely to do than a teenager. Part of assessing the validity of a memory is comparing it to what we know about the world we live in.

 

[Stacyhs]

One of the interesting things in the article about Reade stealing from the horse rescue organization is that Reade tried to get Hummer to open a GoFundMe page under a false name in order to raise money supposedly to help her get away from her allegedly abusive husband. Hummer refused but Reade was able to get another volunteer to do it. However, at the same time as she said she wanted to get away from her husband, she's adopting a horse. I find it very odd to be taking on the responsibility of a horse at that time. Also, it was her husband who brought divorce proceedings against Reade, not vice versa.

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe you grabbed all the pecans off all the pies?

More seriously, that's something an 8-year-old would be more likely to do than a teenager. Part of assessing the validity of a memory is comparing it to what we know about the world we live in.

No way! Waiting for my dad to get home to deal with me once was bad enough!

Which was exactly my point at the time we were discussing it. I told my mother I would not have done that at that age of 13 or 14. My understanding of the consequences of my actions at 8 were not as developed so the immediate satisfaction of eating the pecans outweighed the later consequences.

 

[xjx388]

You see it as you see it. It's apparent nothing I or anyone else say will change that. You think the credibility of the accuser means nothing. I do.

It’s amazing how, this far, the accusers that have credibility are the ones accusing someone with an R after their name.

Oh, come on. Now I know you're just playing games. Really? Taking an accusation of sexual assault seriously is an 'empty platitude'? If I have to explain what is meant by 'taking something seriously' you'll next be asking me what I mean by 'take', 'the', 'accusations' and 'seriously'

When I hear “take the accusations seriously,” I honestly don’t know what that actually means. It seems to mean different things based on who is being accused. Biden has a history of being actually documented touching women in weird and inappropriate ways. Women have said he makes them uncomfortable. Now this. Taking this seriously would mean, to me, at the very least “Listen to her story and put it into context with Biden’s known history. Look for evidence.” But it seems to mean, “Find bad things about the accuser so we don’t have to take the accusations seriously.”

With K, I thought, “Does he have a history? Is there any evidence? No? Then we can dismiss it.”

To be clear, I don’t think “take the accusations seriously,” is a very good policy. Mostly because of what the Biden situation illustrates: “take them seriously” means different things to different people.

So an ex-staffer makes public allegations of sexual assault against an assumed presidential nominee and it should just have been ignored? A woman makes an allegation of rape against a Supreme Court nominee and that should just be ignored? Wow.

From decades ago? With no evidence? Yes. Otherwise we have a situation where it appears how seriously one takes the accusations depends on their politics.

Frankly, this has turned into an "energy vampire" topic with you. I'm hanging some garlic on the door and putting crosses on the windows. Toodles.

That’s too bad. I think there’s an element of ear-plugging, “la la la, I can’t hear you” here, but that’s ok.

 

[Stacyhs]

It seems that garlic and crosses aren't as powerful at fending off energy vampires as traditional bloodsuckers. I'll need to resort to stronger methods....oh...here's one.

 

[Pixel42]

It’s amazing how, this far, the accusers that have credibility are the ones accusing someone with an R after their name.

Not that amazing, surely. Given their dramatically different worldviews and values, I would certainly expect there to be more Republican than Democratic men who think they are entitled to grope women without their consent.