Biden for President?

[Suddenly]

Agreed. And building off of xjx388's post, there is no profit in attacking Reade's credibility. None.

Most voters will dismiss the claims if he denies them. What choice do we have? But if he drags this woman the way his supporters here seem excited to do, he will lose voters. Probably not me, the courts are just too important, but he will turn off some voters. It is unnecessary and unseemly to drag this woman through the mud. Even if you think she is a pig.

His followers are doing a lot of damage.

He's a creep who shouldn't have run. He obviously has problems with women and probably did cross some lines at some point.

That said, I think erstwhile liberals running around using the standard denial tactics on Reade will cause a lot of damage going forward.

The whole point of the "believe the victim" is that outside of a criminal context (which has its own burdens) we give way too much weight to the interest of men accused of sexual misconduct, as if being wrongly accused is a far bigger injury than being assaulted and not being believed. It doesn't mean to uncritically accept every allegation, rather to address this cultural imbalance.

Which is easy to say until your own interests are endangered by an allegation, and then very hard to not draw on the idea that a wrongful accusation is so horrible that it justifies scrutinizing the living crap out of the accuser while demanding very clear evidence. Which is what we are seeing a lot of Biden supporters do, and it is going to be thrown back in our faces for the foreseeable future.

I mean, one can believe Reade, but not to the point where it justifies not voting for Biden. This doesn't have to be a binary choice. Life is full of ambiguity and rough compromises and this isn't a criminal court of law.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think this is an issue of selectivity, there's a threshold for what is relevant.

The accusation was not made in a vacuum. You seem to be saying one shouldn't look at anything about Reade. I'm saying we should be discriminatory and not go in for the throwing in anything to see if it sticks approach.

There is an middle ground here.

It's relative if it is specifically related to her accusation, such as her changing accounts of why she left her job in Biden's office.

The Vox reporters account is relative because it shows Reade escalating the story and escalating her search for news media attention.

I think my reply to TM addresses your post as well, but if not please ask. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your post.

 

[Dr. Keith]

His followers are doing a lot of damage.

He's a creep who shouldn't have run. He obviously has problems with women and probably did cross some lines at some point.

That said, I think erstwhile liberals running around using the standard denial tactics on Reade will cause a lot of damage going forward.

The whole point of the "believe the victim" is that outside of a criminal context (which has its own burdens) we give way too much weight to the interest of men accused of sexual misconduct, as if being wrongly accused is a far bigger injury than being assaulted and not being believed. It doesn't mean to uncritically accept every allegation, rather to address this cultural imbalance.

Which is easy to say until your own interests are endangered by an allegation, and then very hard to not draw on the idea that a wrongful accusation is so horrible that it justifies scrutinizing the living crap out of the accuser while demanding very clear evidence. Which is what we are seeing a lot of Biden supporters do, and it is going to be thrown back in our faces for the foreseeable future.

I mean, one can believe Reade, but not to the point where it justifies not voting for Biden. This doesn't have to be a binary choice. Life is full of ambiguity and rough compromises and this isn't a criminal court of law.

Agreed.

I would only add to your last paragraph: One can believe that Reade is trying to be honest without believing that Biden is being dishonest.

I know it is nice to think that either his hand was there or it wasn't, but thirty years in the future we aren't talking about facts anymore, we are talking about memories. some more factual than others, some more malleable than others. Some reinforced by corroborating evidence, some distorted through repeated retelling of stories.

This goes back to what I tried to say early on: what matters now is not what he did 30 years ago, but how he reacts to the accusation. So far, he has been handling that much better than Justice Kavenaugh did. Go team Mr. Electable!

 

[theprestige]

The Vox reporters account is relative because it shows Reade escalating the story and escalating her search for news media attention.

I'm not sure that escalating the claim signifies that the claim is false. It seems that a common reaction for victims of abuse is to downplay the severity of the abuse, at least at first. People don't always act optimally, especially regarding stressful, painful, or humiliating experiences and memories. A rape victim who initially tries to thread the needle between getting help and minimizing the need for help, and then later decides they need to be more open about how bad it really was, seems entirely plausible to me.

Likewise seeking more media attention. There was no #metoo in the 90s. Or in the 2000s. There was no Social Media brigade ready to take up arms in your cause if you went public. Seeking media attention for rape accusations against a US Senator was a lot more of a crapshoot back then.

It's only very recently that our society has started sending strong signals that going public, and going big, are good strategies for getting justice for sexual abuse. (Of course this can backfire. Our society is also sending strong signals that going public is still a good way to get wrecked, not a good way to be made whole again.)

So, again, a rape victim who initially tries to get help without going public, and later decides they need to go public to get help, also seems entirely plausible to me.

The argument, "there's very little evidence, and what little there is happens to be circumstantial and inconclusive, so maybe it didn't happen" is a good argument in my opinion.

The argument, "she initially described a more minor offense, and didn't go to the press right away, so maybe it didn't happen" seems more like victim-blaming to me, than like a good argument.

---

I think the main problem is twofold:

One, rape accusations by their nature are very hard to prove to anyone's satisfaction. The act doesn't always produce a lot of physical evidence or eyewitnesses, and victims are understandably reticent about coming forward promptly with a strong case.

Two, as a society we're trying to have it both ways: We want to believe rape accusations even without good evidence, because we recognize that there are real victims out there, who shouldn't be dismissed just because the nature of the crime means they can't possibly prove their victimhood to the legal standard. But we also want to protect people from false accusations. So on the one hand, we have "believe all women". On the other, we have "innocent until proven guilty".

And we're telling rape victims to come out under the banner of "Believe All Women", and press for justice on that basis. But we don't actually guarantee that any such victim will be welcomed or supported under that banner. Instead you end up with all kinds of weirdness and inconsistency around "I believe all women, but this case is different because reasons."

A related problem is that it's much easier to gain attention through notoriety these days. There are Social Media brigades that will amplify your message to a degree that was impossible twenty years ago. There's a media class that's more than willing to run with any controversial claim, if it drives eyeballs and sells ads.

So if you're a bored fantasist with a bone to pick, it's pretty easy to get national attention by claiming your former boss groped you. Will some people assume it's true? Yes. Will some people assume it's false? Yes. Will some of the same people assume it's true because society needs to treat rape victims better, and also assume it's false because their guy shouldn't be condemned over unproven allegations? Sadly, yes.

 

[Trebuchet]

He's not going to pardon Trump. Whew, that's a relief!

 

[theprestige]

Then there's the utter hypocrisy of the Democrat political establishment, when comparing Biden to Franken.

Franken was accused. The accusations were not substantiated. Franken said he would submit to a Senate ethics investigation. Then Senator Gillibrand and others told him that wasn't acceptable, and that he needed to resign immediately. Which he did.

I don't know what Gillibrand thought she was up to. But it seems to me that if she's being honest with herself, her constituents, Al Franken, Joe Biden, and the American public, she and the rest of the Franken Railroad Gang need to come out with a formal statement calling for the recusal of Joe Biden from the Democratic presidential nomination process.

 

[xjx388]

Are you arguing Trump's accusers aren't credible?

How are you confused?

No. I am arguing that "credibility," isn't something we should be concerned with when it comes to women who accuse men of sexual assault and harassment.

 

[dann]

Then there's the utter hypocrisy of the Democrat political establishment, when comparing Biden to Franken.

Franken was accused. The accusations were not substantiated. Franken said he would submit to a Senate ethics investigation. Then Senator Gillibrand and others told him that wasn't acceptable, and that he needed to resign immediately. Which he did.

I don't know what Gillibrand thought she was up to. But it seems to me that if she's being honest with herself, her constituents, Al Franken, Joe Biden, and the American public, she and the rest of the Franken Railroad Gang need to come out with a formal statement calling for the recusal of Joe Biden from the Democratic presidential nomination process.

It's good that Republicans don't hold their president to the same high standards, isn't it?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Then there's the utter hypocrisy of the Democrat political establishment, when comparing Biden to Franken.

Franken was accused. The accusations were not substantiated. Franken said he would submit to a Senate ethics investigation. Then Senator Gillibrand and others told him that wasn't acceptable, and that he needed to resign immediately. Which he did.

I don't know what Gillibrand thought she was up to. But it seems to me that if she's being honest with herself, her constituents, Al Franken, Joe Biden, and the American public, she and the rest of the Franken Railroad Gang need to come out with a formal statement calling for the recusal of Joe Biden from the Democratic presidential nomination process.

There were photographs of Franken doing things that he later found embarrassing. I think he was wrong to resign, but it is not the same as an unfounded accusation since there were actual photographs that corroborated the story.

If there were a photo of Biden with his hand up this woman's skirt then there would be some equivalence. But I don't see it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In this case it seems to me an appropriate response and (not ironically) a bold choice that could pay off . There is no way for him to publicly contest this beyond a denial without implicitly attacking Reade in some way and that ends up being quite hypocritical. Essentially saying "make up your own mind" keeps him out of the mud, and he did so without minimizing her allegations by agreeing that it could be disqualifying.

To be honest, Biden's response so far has been pretty even handed. He's not showing the rush to call Reade a lying fraudster that are seen here and in other parts of the public discourse. He denies the accusation and won't speculate on her motives or directly attack her character. Seems like a good response if outright disproving her is not an option.

The other two examples of telling people with legitimate concerns about immigration and climate change, ostensibly issues important with lots of Democrats, was very poor. Telling an immigration activist to vote Trump is abhorrent behavior.

 

[theprestige]

It's good that Republicans don't hold their president to the same high standards, isn't it?

I don't think railroading Franken out of office set such a good standard in the first place. But it's the standard Gillibrand set. Why *not* hold her to it?

 

[Stacyhs]

Biden accidentally substitutes 'jobs' for 'deaths' in a sentence but quickly corrects himself and it's an example of his failing mind.

“This is not a moment for excuses or deflections or blame game. We’re — we’re in the middle of a pandemic that has cost us more than 85,000 jobs as of today.
Lives of millions of people. Millions of people. Millions of jobs.

But this recent Trump statement is not a simple and common case of using the wrong word. It's an example of Trump's idiocy:

When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases. They don’t want to write that. It’s just common sense

 

[theprestige]

There were photographs of Franken doing things that he later found embarrassing. I think he was wrong to resign, but it is not the same as an unfounded accusation since there were actual photographs that corroborated the story.

If there were a photo of Biden with his hand up this woman's skirt then there would be some equivalence. But I don't see it.

My understanding is that there were additional allegations, and that it was the totality of the allegations that Franken was willing to submit to Ethics Committee review.

I think if there were a photo of Biden with his hand up a staffer's skirt, it would be far more damning than the Franken photo.

 

[theprestige]

To be honest, Biden's response so far has been pretty even handed. He's not showing the rush to call Reade a lying fraudster that are seen here and in other parts of the public discourse. He denies the accusation and won't speculate on her motives or directly attack her character. Seems like a good response if outright disproving her is not an option.

Counterpoint: Nowadays any even slightly-popular politician can be confident that there's a social media brigade ready and waiting to do all the dirty work he could possibly hope for. It costs Biden nothing to take the high road, when there's a whole Twitter army enthusiastically taking the low road on his behalf. He has the luxury of being able to easily crowdsource the kind of smear campaign that Nixon would have had to assign to the FBI.

The other two examples of telling people with legitimate concerns about immigration and climate change, ostensibly issues important with lots of Democrats, was very poor. Telling an immigration activist to vote Trump is abhorrent behavior.

The fact that he used the same crappy deflection tactic in all three examples suggests that he's got the same crappy position in all three cases.

 

[theprestige]

Biden accidentally substitutes 'jobs' for 'deaths' in a sentence but quickly corrects himself and it's an example of his failing mind.

Yeah, that one just seems stupid to me. I see it as a perfectly normal occurrence in public speaking.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Nice way to cherry pick over the important part of my post. Good day, you are dismissed for being dishonest.

The dull and pointless part. The part I would have spend time looking for and examining evidence for your bald assertion and still won’t know. Get over yourself.

 

[xjx388]

Biden accidentally substitutes 'jobs' for 'deaths' in a sentence but quickly corrects himself and it's an example of his failing mind.



But this recent Trump statement is not a simple and common case of using the wrong word. It's an example of Trump's idiocy:

But we’ve been told in other contexts that such word substitution is a sign of mental decline/mental illness and disqualifying.

I agree that it’s a common occurrence in public speaking and no big deal. But that’s an across the board thing for me, not a “in this one case it’s no big deal; in this other case it’s a huge problem,” thing.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, that one just seems stupid to me. I see it as a perfectly normal occurrence in public speaking.

Agreed. Everyone does it...some more than others. My husband is a very intelligent man but he has a life long history of substituting the wrong word. For example, he'll say "Is the dryer clean?" when he actually meant to say "dishwasher" or "Put the ice cream in the refrigerator" when he obviously meant "freezer". It's become a long standing joke in the family.

 

[xjx388]

There were photographs of Franken doing things that he later found embarrassing. I think he was wrong to resign, but it is not the same as an unfounded accusation since there were actual photographs that corroborated the story.

If there were a photo of Biden with his hand up this woman's skirt then there would be some equivalence. But I don't see it.

There are photos and videos of him treating women in a pretty creepy way, though. Even young girls.

Biden has also been criticized for being too handsy with children. Once at a swearing-in ceremony for Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from his home state of Delaware, Biden held the upper arm of the senator’s preteen daughter, leaned down, and whispered into her ear, as she became visibly uncomfortable. Then he kissed the side of her forehead, a gesture that made the girl flinch.

Women have said it makes them uncomfortable. Lucy Flores, from the same Vox article: "The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it." He's a man in power who make women and girls uncomfortable with his behavior.

So fine, we can let the sexual assault allegation go because there is no evidence, but we are eliding the evidence we do have: He seems to 1)have some weird hair fetish 2)have a problem being too handsy and invasive of personal space -and he has so little control over it that he has been caught, nose-in-hair, touching women and girls, on camera, multiple times along with other allegations from women about kissing the back of their head and other weird stuff like that.

I wonder why those things are dismissible. I also wonder why those things are not viewed as evidence that he might indeed have been capable of comitting the kind of assault that Reade accuses him of.

 

[theprestige]

Agreed. Everyone does it...some more than others. My husband is a very intelligent man but he has a life long history of substituting the wrong word. For example, he'll say "Is the dryer clean?" when he actually meant to say "dishwasher" or "Put the ice cream in the refrigerator" when he obviously meant "freezer". It's become a long standing joke in the family.

Exactly.