Biden for President?

[Cain]

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

This is a crude mischaracterization. I've had students who fail to attend class, miss deadlines, and bomb exams, but the vast majority of them are not deceitful or manipulative. You're confusing reliability with credibility.

Some students are not going to deliver their term paper on defensive neo-realism. Occasionally one exhausting person will fail to deliver AND s/he will try to suck you into their carnival of horrors.

 

[theprestige]

Christine Blasey-Ford was traumatized for life due to her alleged assault, perhaps Tara Reade's trauma broke her mentally and grifting became a survival tool. We know the alleged assault occured before August 1992 and she was dealing with the financial debt or fraud problem around that time. If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault than #metoo must #believeallwomen, conclude that she was traumatized for life by whatever Biden may have done to her, and they must #hoistontheirpetard.

Maybe she would have been able to handle the original debt problem more effectively, if not for the the sudden trauma at that time. Instead of pulling out of it, she ended up spiraling farther in. Kind of like Joe Biden's fingers, perhaps.

 

[theprestige]

You're wrong.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[johnny karate]

Christine Blasey-Ford was traumatized for life due to her alleged assault, perhaps Tara Reade's trauma broke her mentally and grifting became a survival tool. We know the alleged assault occured before August 1992 and she was dealing with the financial debt or fraud problem around that time. If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault than #metoo must #believeallwomen, conclude that she was traumatized for life by whatever Biden may have done to her, and they must #hoistontheirownpetard.

Ah yes, the George Zimmerman defense.

Evidence that he was violent before the incident doesn’t matter and to mention it is just character assassination.

Evidence that he was violent after the incident are just an indication that he was broken and traumatized by his ordeal.

Therefore, despite a history of violence throughout his adult life, George Zimmerman was not a violent person.

Airtight logic, that is.

 

[Mumbles]

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

There's also a lot of evidence that Biden, at the time, was a reasonable gentleman who would not have asked her to cater to a funding meeting, and who was one of the senators who women who worked for other senators knew to be safe.

*And* the people she claimed she informed had never heard of it.

*And* one of the few people who initially agreed has now retracted.

Wanna know what convinced me once and for all that Kavenaugh was guilty? It was the fact that the party, at the place she alleged, involving the people she alleged, was clearly written on *his* calandar. Lindsay Graham clearly noticed, too, because that's when he suddenly screwed his face up and started ranting and screaming. In this case, the evidence we expect to find, is simply not there, and Raede has a history of falsely claiming to be a victim.

When she first came out, I was leading towards her, but aid it should be looked into. It's now been looked into rather extensively, and *everything* is pointing toward Biden's innocence. "Believe women" is a default position while there's an investigation, not something you do when you're a juror, get it right.

 

[Scopedog]

Ah yes, the George Zimmerman defense.

Evidence that he was violent before the incident doesn’t matter and to mention it is just character assassination.

Evidence that he was violent after the incident are just an indication that he was broken and traumatized by his ordeal.

Therefore, despite a history of violence throughout his adult life, George Zimmerman was not a violent person.

Airtight logic, that is.

I stated: "If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault ... " I assume there was some delay between the incident and August 1992 when she left the staff. I don't think we know when the currently first known debt or fraud problem started. Is there evidence of debt or fraud before the approximate time of the alleged assault?

 

[johnny karate]

I stated: "If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault ... " I assume there was some delay between the incident and August 1992 when she left the staff. I don't think we know when the currently first known debt or fraud problem started. Is there evidence of debt or fraud before the approximate time of the alleged assault?

Reade claims the assault took place in 1993.

https://www.theunion.com/news/local...d-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/

The check fraud took place in 1992.

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/15/di...fraud-story-is-based-on-altered-court-emails/

So yes, there is evidence.

Feels like maybe something you should have looked into before you floated your ridiculous theory.

 

[Cain]

I tend to follow this crazy heuristic: Be wary people with multiple aliases. It helps filter out the Alexandra McCabes and John Barrons.

 

[Scopedog]

Reade claims the assault took place in 1993.

https://www.theunion.com/news/local...d-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/

The check fraud took place in 1992.

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/15/di...fraud-story-is-based-on-altered-court-emails/

So yes, there is evidence.

Feels like maybe something you should have looked into before you floated your ridiculous theory.

The update with the start date of the check issue is from 2 days ago (I made a mistake of memory on the year she left the staff in my post) but thank you for the correction.

 

[Stacyhs]

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

Yes, you see lots of evidence of her being broke and not paying her rent and people she borrowed money from. But what you ignore...and I don't think that is an accident...is that she lied several times about being an abused wife trying to escape her husband in order to get money from people. She presented herself as a current victim when she was no longer an abused wife (if ever) and had not been for years. She not only failed to pay back money because she was 'poor' (as you tried to present her) but she planned to steal money/objects. She planned to charge her vet bills to the rescue. Twice. That was no accident. She also stole law books she had been lent from another one of her victims. Give me a break with this "Reade was often unreliable" whitewashing. She was a con artist.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

If you have to have this explained to you for the umpteenth time, then you aren't paying attention.

ThePrestige, and other, have already made the relevant point about this. Reade's allegations, as they stand now, are impossible to verify. Unless some new detail comes out, it's likely to remain unverifiable. Biden has denied it, and there's no road to certainty one way or the other. It's largely a dead issue.

Is that why there is a pro-Trump campaign ad using Reade to attack Biden? Is that why Republicans are using Reade to attack their Dem rivals? It's most certainly not a 'dead issue'.

This attempt to smear Reade is pathetic and unworthy of anyone calling themselves a skeptic. It has very little to do with vindicating Biden and a lot to do with punishing someone who dared cause a problem for their preferred candidate. This attempt to slant Reade by bringing up irrelevant failings of her personal life is a punitive campaign against a sexual assault accuser. The party of MeToo is showing what it really believes in.

[/QUOTE]

This is beyond ludicrous. It has everything to do with vindicating Biden and nothing to do with "punishing" Reade. I don't give a crap about Reade. I have no interest in "punishing" her for anything. What I was, and am, concerned with is establishing if Biden committed a sexual assault. And nothing, absolutely nothing, Reade has said convinces me in the slightest that he did. On the other hand, the more I learn about her, the more convinced I am that she is lying.

What I do see are some very disgruntled Sanders supporters who are angry that he lost the nomination to Biden and some pro-Trumpers who want Biden to be guilty for obvious reasons.

 

[Stacyhs]

I’m also not aware that MeToo has manifested itself as the worst case version that its critics claim.

“Believe women” isn’t about denying due process.

It’s about treating allegations seriously, which includes a thorough investigation as part of due process.

This.

But apparently a thorough investigation cannot include looking into the accuser's history as that is just 'character assassination' and 'smearing' when facts are found that do not reflect well on the accuser's credibility.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What I do see are some very disgruntled Sanders supporters who are angry that he lost the nomination to Biden

...do you, though? We've had a few conservative trolls pretend to be disgruntled Sanders supporters, too. I'd keep one eye on the possibility that they're just astroturfing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I take it you didn't bother looking at the PBS piece on this.

Did you look at the Vox piece?

Seems like you decided any evidence was about unfairly smearing the accuser and you've done nothing to unconfirm that bias.

Very little if anything in the PBS piece is about Reade. It is all about vindicating Biden. You really should look at it and as far as 'being a true skeptic' look up the part about confirmation bias.

[SG- first thread vindication ]

 

[Stacyhs]

Christine Blasey-Ford was traumatized for life due to her alleged assault, perhaps Tara Reade's trauma broke her mentally and grifting became a survival tool. We know the alleged assault occured before August 1992 and she was dealing with the financial debt or fraud problem around that time. If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault than #metoo must #believeallwomen, conclude that she was traumatized for life by whatever Biden may have done to her, and they must #hoistontheirownpetard.

Reade claims it happened in the summer of 1993, not 1992. Since the check "problem" occurred before that, she was already having financial problems. She was only able to hold onto the Biden job for 8 months before being fired (not quitting as she sometimes claimed) for failure to carry out her job responsibilities. Sound familiar? Being irresponsible is a pattern for Reade.

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe she would have been able to handle the original debt problem more effectively, if not for the the sudden trauma at that time. Instead of pulling out of it, she ended up spiraling farther in. Kind of like Joe Biden's fingers, perhaps.

She was so traumatized that she repeatedly and proudly told people that she had worked with Biden, implying she was on his staff far longer and worked more closely with him than was true. She was so traumatized that she praised Biden for his work on sexual harassment/assault legislation. That's some traumatized.

 

[Stacyhs]

I tend to follow this crazy heuristic: Be wary people with multiple aliases. It helps filter out the Alexandra McCabes and John Barrons.

Changing her name so many times raises a red flag for me. Reade claims it was to hide from her abusive ex- husband. But what evidence is there that her ex harassed her in any way? Were protection orders taken out by her after the divorce? Did she make police reports of harassment? Not that anyone has mentioned and I don't think it's illogical to assume that has been looked into by investigators. They'd be a matter of public record.

People change their names multiple times often to avoid being found...including by creditors. Since no protection orders or allegations of abuse after the divorce reported to the police have been brought to light, I suspect the name changes had more to do with escaping creditors. It would fit with her pattern of not taking responsibility.

(Yeah, yeah....character assassination! Smear job!. Save it for someone who cares.)

 

[Stacyhs]

...do you, though? We've had a few conservative trolls pretend to be disgruntled Sanders supporters, too. I'd keep one eye on the possibility that they're just astroturfing.

The ones I'm thinking of were Sanders supporters long before he dropped out of the race. They had no reason to be 'disgruntled' before then. But your point about trolls is still relevant.

 

[Tero]

I see a range of things that might have happened between Reade and Biden:

at the extreme, Biden did something horrible a long time ago and, as far as we know (and by now we would most likely know) never did anything similar ever again.
In that scenario, the Biden we vote on in November is not the Biden who assaulted Reade.

at the other extreme, Reade has a, possibly legitimate, grievance against Biden's office from the time she worked there, possibly involving inappropriate physical contact or speech, but falling far short of coercion or assault. And since then, Reade has escalated the accusations in the hopes of profiting from doing so.

Biden most likely did come on to her. However, the details seem a little Trumpy. Biden wishing some...whatever...with her initiated it with some touching. But as to how far it went, a person keeping it to herself 30 years would tend to embellish it a bit to make it "real". Of course he touched her, but a woman fully dressed is a bit difficult to go after in such a manner. Especially if it was not anything she expected and he was out of line.

Simple summary: he probably got tangled in her clothing in his "adventure."

 

[Mumbles]

The ones I'm thinking of were Sanders supporters long before he dropped out of the race. They had no reason to be 'disgruntled' before then. But your point about trolls is still relevant.

Same here - their response to his proposal for the government to pay mortgages and rents directly is "We don't believe him", and their response to the Biden/Sanders joint comittees "which contain quite a few excellent names I recognize such as Erc Holder and AOC is "Wah, we don't care!"

But really, this is just the Bernie Bro crowd - the normal Sanders vetoers have been noting their approval.

 

[Stacyhs]

Biden most likely did come on to her. However, the details seem a little Trumpy. Biden wishing some...whatever...with her initiated it with some touching. But as to how far it went, a person keeping it to herself 30 years would tend to embellish it a bit to make it "real". Of course he touched her, but a woman fully dressed is a bit difficult to go after in such a manner. Especially if it was not anything she expected and he was out of line.

Simple summary: he probably got tangled in her clothing in his "adventure."

Why on earth is it "likely" he did come onto her? None of his many staffers who worked with him said he EVER treated women with anything but respect. He was never included in the female staffers' "list of senators to avoid getting on an elevator alone with." In fact, they said he had the reputation of treating women as equals to men. Your speculation is not based on any evidence whatsoever.