Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
It depends if Biden blatantly lies like Kavanaugh did.
Click to expand...

That's also fair. Biden doesn't appear to be facing quite the same scrutiny by the media and court of public opinion as Kavanaugh did. Yet. He hasn't had many opportunities forced upon him to test his recollection or honesty about this. I predict that this is a drip-drip sort of situation where more accusers will surface. I've always thought that Joe Biden is probably not a creep or a predator, but he's an old-fashioned, affectionate grandpa or uncle-type who, consciously or unconsciously, treats some people, mostly women, like they're his grandchildren or nieces/nephews. This isn't so bad as long as they're not co-workers or subordinates- it still looks bad, but is probably not disqualifying to most people. If it turns out that he was performing the grandpa/uncle routine on co-workers/subordinates, even with no inappropriate intentions, then I think he's disqualified by modern Democratic Party standards (that's on top of being disqualified for being an old, straight, white male). And that's assuming new allegations are non-sexual. The guy is a dinosaur (perhaps a prokaryote) by modern Democratic Party standards, like a grandparent who still uses the N-word except more harmless (I say "more harmless" because I'm sure there are segments of the left that equate any degree of infantilization of women to patriarchal, toxic masculinity that, literally, leads, literally, to literal misogyny and literal murder, literally- did I say literally, yet? Literally).

This is all about the bed the Democratic Party made for itself. Joe Biden's nomination is kind of a reaction against that, but has enough of the party moved back toward or remained in his more old-fashioned orientation for him to survive as nominee?
 
Last edited:
It also occurs to me that, whatever her credibility problems are now, she was a staffer at the time with no apparent reason to ruffle the feathers of the Democratic Party and, based on her mother's Larry King call, appeared to, contemporaneously, actively work to protect the party, regardless of the magnitude of Biden's real or perceived transgression. Moreover, any aspersion cast against her is evidence against the accused, as is the #metoo standard. #believewomen #shutupandlisten #hoistwiththeirownpetard
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
In Ford/Kavanaugh: a claimant with a relatively stable story
Click to expand...
People at the time kept talking about how much her story had changed. It sounded exactly like it does now with Reade, just coming from a different set of people.

Segnosaur said:
In Reade/Biden: A claimant with a questionable history
Click to expand...
Having unrelated stuff to say about other political figures, or politics in general, is "questionable" :rolleyes:... as long as the accuser you're talking about has accused somebody on your side instead of the other side.

This stuff is always the same over & over again. When one finds the accusation politically troublesome, one comes up with bad stuff to say about the accuser. When one finds the accusation politically helpful, one not only doesn't do that but even preaches about how awful the other side is for doing that. You all just end up sounding like you're reading your parts in a Joss Whedon script.

"Wow, those people who did that thing sure are foul!"

"You did it just in last week's episode yourself."

"That was totally different."

"How?"

"Because this is that other guy, and that was me." (Audience: "And that episode was supposed to be shown three weeks ago anyway so we'd have forgotten by now!")

* * *

I also clicked the quote thing on the post where you pretended to answer my last post, to answer the substantive bits without taking the time to go through the crap piece by piece. But, by the time I was done clipping out the flagrant subject-dodges like "well but that hypothetical was hypothetical"... and the shameful/shameless attempts to merely insult me into submission like "Bernie Bro Bernie Bro Bernie Bro!"... and the surreal denials of basic universal logic like "there's no such thing as somebody ever claiming to have positions that their actions show they don't really have or trying to sneak the appearance of change past us without having really changed while still showing real signs afterward that they still haven't changed anyway, and certainly nobody could possibly have been judging other people's intentions by such principles all their lives before ever even hearing of any of the candidates in this election"... there was just nothing left to quote.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
When people won’t answer questions but simply insist that I should already know why they are right, it’s generally a tell that they aren’t.
Click to expand...

It’s not an insistence that you should know to spare someone the trouble of providing substantiation. That can easily be provided (and actually was by at least one poster).

We’ve moved past that.

This is about genuine bewilderment at the idea that you are somehow unaware of the story that has dominated America politics for the last month, and what will probably end up being one of the biggest political scandals of all time.

So again, are you claiming to be unaware of all the documented failures of the Trump administration in its preparedness for and response to the coronavirus pandemic?
 
Ziggurat said:
When people won’t answer questions but simply insist that I should already know why they are right, it’s generally a tell that they aren’t.
Click to expand...

Speaking of not answering questions, you probably overlooked a couple I asked on a related subject. I'll provide a condensed form of them.

We know that on January 31, Trump knew of impending danger. We know this because on January 31 he imposed travel restrictions in response to the impending danger.

What did he do on February 1?
February 8?
February 15?
February 22?
 
Segnosaur said:
I don't think its as compelling as some people are thinking.

Yes, it establishes that Reade was working for Biden, and gives an approximate time-line for the incident. But I don't remember anyone complaining that Reade couldn't be trusted because she did couldn't remember dates.
Click to expand...

Nobody was complaining that she couldn't be trusted.

However, I was one of those arguing that people saying today that they remember an incident from years ago doesn't have the same corroborative value as if they could show a response to the incident years ago when it happened.

The mother's phone call to Larry King is a contemporaneous corroboration of the claim that something happened, is all. Not sure how compelling you think people think it is, but I think it's at least that compelling.
 
Meadmaker said:
Speaking of not answering questions, you probably overlooked a couple I asked on a related subject. I'll provide a condensed form of them.

We know that on January 31, Trump knew of impending danger. We know this because on January 31 he imposed travel restrictions in response to the impending danger.

What did he do on February 1?
February 8?
February 15?
February 22?
Click to expand...

Is the answer "golf"? I'm betting it's "golf".
 
theprestige said:
Nobody was complaining that she couldn't be trusted.

However, I was one of those arguing that people saying today that they remember an incident from years ago doesn't have the same corroborative value as if they could show a response to the incident years ago when it happened.

The mother's phone call to Larry King is a contemporaneous corroboration of the claim that something happened, is all. Not sure how compelling you think people think it is, but I think it's at least that compelling.
Click to expand...

I ninja'ed you: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13069003&postcount=1806
 
Come to think of it, I don't like Bernie, because he's a socialist, even if it's the "Democratic Socialist" sort. He's too far left, he promises all sorts of things and can't say how he'll pay for them and..………..we all just got 1200 dollar checks that no one can possibly pay for.

We might as well have a socialist. At least the socialist will raise the taxes.


So, now, count me officially as an "anyone but Trump" guy. Not that that's a change, but my last teeny tiny reservations have been wiped away. Biden? He's fine, but he's too darned old. Bernie? I don't like him, and he's too darned old. Trump? He's an absolute disaster, a socialist for white collars, a thoroughly detestable creature, and he's too darned old.

Vermin Supreme? He's not Trump. I'll take him.


(For those not familiar with Vermin Supreme, he was a parody candidate, actually on the ballot in states where it was easy to qualify for primary ballots. His primary campaign promise was "Everyone gets a pony." Try youtube.)
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Come to think of it, I don't like Bernie, because he's a socialist, even if it's the "Democratic Socialist" sort. He's too far left, he promises all sorts of things and can't say how he'll pay for them and..………..we all just got 1200 dollar checks that no one can possibly pay for.

We might as well have a socialist. At least the socialist will raise the taxes.
.....
Click to expand...

What does "socialist" mean here? Sanders supports universal health care, free or cheap public college and a reversal of wealth concentration. Those are not radical pipedreams. In fact, they are consistent with the values of pre-Reagan America. Public college used to be cheap and sometimes free, the top marginal income tax rates used to be much higher, and even Nixon proposed a universal health insurance plan that he couldn't get through Congress. Sanders is a Hubert Humphrey Democrat.

What do you think "socialist" means?
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
What do you think "socialist" means?
Click to expand...

Ask Bernie. He uses the term.

I think he means make America more like Europe, which would not be awful.

Anyway, I think Biden is more realistic. He doesn't promise to give the world away while not raising taxes.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ask Bernie. He uses the term.
.....
Click to expand...

He has told you explicitly, if not monotonously, what it means to him. His policy goals are clear. The question is what does it mean to you? What do you see as offensive or unrealistic about those policies? If he called himself a Federalist or a Whig or a Labor supporter, would you feel differently about those policies? Why is the word "socialist" the boogeyman?
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Pushed? By who and When? Over what?

Pushed at the time of the incidents? Well, if that's the case and he's covering up for things now, then he's a liar.

Pushed during the hearings? Well, the purpose of the hearings was to establish facts. They are supposed to push when the facts are not forthcoming.
Click to expand...

"Pushed" as in he was naked and someone pushed him.

Errr... not really.

First of all, in the Reade/Biden case, you have the issue where the "story" that was told has shifted significantly over time, going from inappropriate touching to penetration. And while she claims she "told people the true story" at the time, those people have not really been vetted. One person is anonymous, one (her brother) himself has changed his story, and her mother has died.
Click to expand...

Memories are constructed in the brain, not recorded, which is precisely why the dick-in-face episode was questionable. The alleged victim did not recall the incident until "probing" her memory; after being told by others it happened, she "remembered" it. There are no versions to compare Dr. Ford's accounts over a thirty-year stretch, so it may only seem as though her story has not changed when it has just recently matured/crystallized. Also, the witnesses she alleged could back her up never did.

In the case of Biden, I'm naturally suspicious that he grabbed a woman by the pussy (and penetrated her). It's just sooooo... on-the-pussy (and more), which is why I initially dismissed it. Unfortunately for Joe, one of the accuser's confidants is recorded calling into Mr. Suspenders' TV show in the early 90s.

I probably would not have believed Lewinsky if not for the blue-and-white dress.

Secondly, you have the nature off the defendant. During his hearings, Kavanaugh have said things that were pretty obviously a lie... his definition of a "devil's triangle" (which was contradicted by his peers at the time) as an example.

While I certainly don't think Biden is perfect, nothing that he has said seems to rise to the level of deceipt that Kavanaugh's statement did.
Click to expand...

Biden has not faced similar pressure. What if it turns out that there is a record of a complaint filed with Biden's office? Then his campaign's statements will start to look deceitful. By the way, something can only look deceitful if there is pressure. Deceit holds up to mild scrutiny -- that's what makes it deceitful.

Thirdly, there are some aspects of Reade herself that might make people question her credibility... that she was a Sanders supporter, her little love letter to Putin (followed by her attempts to cover it up), that she made pro-Biden statements after the assault (It is not totally unheard of for a victim to maintain that type of attitude, but to many people it seems strange... "I was assaulted... but I'll say positive things about my attacker... now I'm telling most people that I wasn't actually assaulted...but now I'm going to support his opponent and I will say more things about the assault").

Compared to that? Ford has lead a pretty straight-forward, unremarkable life. She appears to be fairly apolitical, without any of the controversies or weird missteps that have plagued Reade.
Click to expand...

There are timing issues in almost everyone's story, especially when it garners media attention; there are skeletons in everyone's closet, including Ford's. I'll say more or less exactly what I said about people impugning Dr. Ford's timing: So she cooks up these allegations years and years ago, tells others, bides her time, waiting until the perfect moment to ruin a man's career?

Another way of looking at it is that each of these women waited until their alleged attacker was nominated for the highest position in his profession. But the timing of the accusations is probably mostly informed by #metoo culture.

Then there is the calendar... Kavanaugh supposedly brought it up as some sort of defense, but ironically it actually provides evidence against him... he claimed that he recalled no party as described by Ford, but the calendar itself has an entry that describes the exact type of party that the attempted assault happened at. Far from being an alibi, it actually seems to bolster the accusations against him.
Click to expand...

Ford could not remember much about where or when the party took place. Kavanaugh's calendar showed he attended a lot of parties.

So, to summarize:

In Ford/Kavanaugh: a claimant with a relatively stable story made allegations against someone who during his defense, perjured himself, and then brought evidence that actually provided evidence to support the claimant.

In Reade/Biden: A claimant with a questionable history made allegations that appear to have shifted radically over time, against someone who is admittedly flawed but who has no other similar allegations against him.

So which of those 2 cases sounds more solid?
Click to expand...

OK, counselor. :rolleyes: The problem is in the characterizations themselves. One of these women has a "questionable" history and the other does not? Kavanaugh perjured himself and Biden has not? Biden has not been grilled by Senators and the media.

That does not necessarily mean that Reade is lying about the assault. Just that her allegations should be viewed with a little more skepticism than those made by Ford.
Click to expand...

She has more compelling evidence backing up her account (a call-in television show). In most of these cases of sexual misconduct, the woman identifies people she told at the time that it occurred. Given the personal nature of the incident, she's naturally going to tell close friends and loved ones. Naturally, we are going to question the honesty of those friends and loved ones.

Here's the main problem with your comparison: We're at different points along each timeline. You're comparing a movie that has more or less finished to one that's still in the first act. Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh were grounds for further investigation and probing.

The credible accusations against Biden are grounds for more digging. Someone needs to go through his records. If the woman who managed Biden's office is correct, then investigators will not find anything.
 
Cain said:
.....
In the case of Biden, I'm naturally suspicious that he grabbed a woman by the pussy (and penetrated her). It's just sooooo... on-the-pussy (and more), which is why I initially dismissed it. Unfortunately for Joe, one of the accuser's confidants is recorded calling into Mr. Suspenders' TV show in the early 90s.
.....
Click to expand...


But Mom never said what daughter told her or who she meant. There was no allegation of sexual assault or even other misconduct.

"Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington?" she asks. "My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him."

Larry King responds: "In other words, she had a story to tell but out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn't tell it?"
"That's true," the caller says.

The woman does not mention sexual assault or harassment, nor does she describe in any detail what "problems" she might be referring to. Her daughter's name and Biden are also not mentioned.
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/politics/tara-reade-mom-larry-king/index.html

I suspect that a large percentage of the 20-somethings working on Capitol Hill have told their Moms or somebody else that their jobs are miserable and their bosses are jerks. In many cases they are, and that's why there's a high turnover in those offices. That's a long, long way from claiming that a prominent Senator raped her in a public place.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/politics/tara-reade-mom-larry-king/index.html

I don't have any trouble believing that famous people do bad things. I have a lot of trouble believing that this particular person did this particular thing, a vile act that no one else has ever accused him of before or since. One factor is that she says she can't remember where it happened. But she worked on Capitol Hill. She knows what's where. She says she was sent to take his bag to him. But she doesn't remember where she was sent? And is it plausible that he would have done this in a public corridor where a scream or a struggle would have been heard, and he would have been recognized by anyone responding? There might even have been security cameras. And how could he be sure that she wouldn't go straight to a phone (pre-cell era) and call the cops?

I might believe Biden could have affairs. I might believe he could knock on a staffer's hotel room door during a campaign trip. But I find this particular allegation hard to swallow.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom