• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Puppycow said:
But we're halfway through the nominating process and all of the moderate alternatives to Biden have already dropped out of the race. It's almost inevitable that Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic party's nominee for president at this point. Two months ago, maybe this would have made a difference, but now? I would have preferred someone, anyone other than Biden to be our nominee, but all the alternatives other than Bernie have already dropped out of the race, and it's too late for them to get back in. So what is this really? Why now, at this precise moment? Can anyone justify the timing to me?
Click to expand...

For a long time, it was assumed that Biden was done. Prior to SC there was a lot of chatter about his campaign wrapping up in defeat. Perhaps she was satisfied to know that her abuser would not be ascending to the highest office in the land.

Take the Kavanaugh case for example. If you believed Ford in that case, you could also ask why she waited so long to say something. Perhaps seeing your abuser rise to a position of high honor is an insult to injury too severe to tolerate.
 
I'm starting to think all Presidential candidates from here on out are going to have these accusations.

It may be true, but I don't think it is (yet). The timing seems fishy, and why would she have accused him of inappropriate behavior before and not included the actual rape?

However, it looks like Elizabeth Warren believes that it happened, or at least is pretending to.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I'm starting to think all Presidential candidates from here on out are going to have these accusations.

It may be true, but I don't think it is (yet). The timing seems fishy, and why would she have accused him of inappropriate behavior before and not included the actual rape?

However, it looks like Elizabeth Warren believes that it happened, or at least is pretending to.
Click to expand...


Let's not get the accusers confused. The woman alleging rape is Tara Reade. The person Warren believes is Lucy Flores, who claimed Biden kissed the back of her head. Note that the Warren post is from last year.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/poli...den-accuser-former-nevada-lawmaker/index.html
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/489719-tara-reade-discusses-biden-allegation-with-hilltvs-rising
 
Last edited:
She claims she was wearing a skirt with nothing on beneath? No underwear? I find that extremely odd. I've never in my life worn a skirt or dress with no underwear on beneath.
Click to expand...

Puppycow said:
Well I can already imagine the response to that one: "typical slut-shaming". It may be unusual, but I don't know if we can call it a "red flag".
Click to expand...

That's not 'slut-shaming' which is blaming the victim because of the way she behaves, dresses, her sex life, etc. Whether or not she had on underwear is in no way placing the blame on her. I just find it very odd for a woman who was at her job as a US senator's staffer to not have on underwear under her skirt. She claimed she wasn't wearing hose (I'll assume pantyhose) because it was a hot day which would make sense, but no underwear?

Reade mentions that she was told Biden liked her legs which suggests she wore her skirts short as most young women in their 20's did in 1993. Wearing a short skirt with no underwear wouldn't be a very smart thing to do for obvious reasons. So, yes, it is a red flag for me.
 
Stacyhs said:
That's not 'slut-shaming' which is blaming the victim because of the way she behaves, dresses, her sex life, etc. Whether or not she had on underwear is in no way placing the blame on her. I just find it very odd for a woman who was at her job as a US senator's staffer to not have on underwear under her skirt. She claimed she wasn't wearing hose (I'll assume pantyhose) because it was a hot day which would make sense, but no underwear?

Reade mentions that she was told Biden liked her legs which suggests she wore her skirts short as most young women in their 20's did in 1993. Wearing a short skirt with no underwear wouldn't be a very smart thing to do for obvious reasons. So, yes, it is a red flag for me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it smells like a political "dirty trick" to me. The bonus is getting to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy if they try to question her story or details like that one specifically.
 
Stacyhs said:
That's not 'slut-shaming' which is blaming the victim because of the way she behaves, dresses, her sex life, etc. Whether or not she had on underwear is in no way placing the blame on her. I just find it very odd for a woman who was at her job as a US senator's staffer to not have on underwear under her skirt. She claimed she wasn't wearing hose (I'll assume pantyhose) because it was a hot day which would make sense, but no underwear?

Reade mentions that she was told Biden liked her legs which suggests she wore her skirts short as most young women in their 20's did in 1993. Wearing a short skirt with no underwear wouldn't be a very smart thing to do for obvious reasons. So, yes, it is a red flag for me.
Click to expand...

Per your quote she didn't specify underwear, she just said "nothing" at one point. She also said this:

“There was no exchange, really. He just had me up against the wall. And I was wearing, like a skirt, you know, a business skirt, but I wasn’t wearing stockings."
Click to expand...

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-fingers-joe-biden-accused-of-sexual-assault/

So in context it is somewhat clear she isn't talking about underwear. At the very least it is unclear enough to not be significant.

Scrutinizing these collateral details out of context in an attempt to discredit the accuser is itself a red flag.
 
These are the exact same musings that produce (appropriate) indignation when R's circle the wagons around the accused.
 
Puppycow said:
I suppose I should address this. I don't think the allegations against Kavanaugh were ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This probably isn't the thread to rehash those allegations, but there are reasons to doubt including the unreliability of human memory. I opposed Kavanaugh for other reasons, independent of Ford's accusation.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a criminal trial. It was an issue of whether he was going to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. There was enough to stop that or at least enough where it should have been extensively investigated, and Kavanaugh's history as well. Instead, he was fast-tracked.

People forget details. They usually don't create a memory of being assaulted. They also don't like to speak up because it creates a whole heap of baggage, but as another poster pointed out, that calculus changes when they are about to put the person that assaulted you in a position of effectively absolute power.

We see so many of these accusations regarding powerful men because for the longest time being able to act like this was seen as a perk that came with influence. The idea that even the cliche' of grabbing the hot secretary's rear is sexual battery is an idea of recent vintage and that it should be disqualifying when considering putting someone in the highest position of power is not convenient. This is why we don't want to believe them and use all sorts of tricks (high standard of proof, concentrating on consistency re: collateral details, etc.) to keep our heads in the sand.

No matter what one's political persuasion is, it is highly likely that if a man, especially an older man, is prominent that man probably engaged in sexual misconduct at some point.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
These are the exact same musings that produce (appropriate) indignation when R's circle the wagons around the accused.
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of partisan politics. This happens any time a person of influence is accused. What we rightly consider sexual misconduct today was more and more common the further back you go, and accordingly a massive number of men of influence have in the past done something awful.

We just don't like the inconveniences created by taking it seriously. Which is why a lot of Democrats are going to dust off the rape denial manual right now. There may be tons of reasons not to believe this, but it is important to avoid devolving into sophistry.
 
Suddenly said:
It wasn't a criminal trial. It was an issue of whether he was going to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
.....
Click to expand...

Let's just note that he already held a lifetime appointment to a federal appeals court. The only question was whether he deserved to be hired for the job he was applying for. His belligerence at his hearings revealed a lack of judicial temperament that should have been enough to disqualify him. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" didn't enter into it at all.
 
Suddenly said:
Per your quote she didn't specify underwear, she just said "nothing" at one point. She also said this:



https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-fingers-joe-biden-accused-of-sexual-assault/

So in context it is somewhat clear she isn't talking about underwear. At the very least it is unclear enough to not be significant.

Scrutinizing these collateral details out of context in an attempt to discredit the accuser is itself a red flag.
Click to expand...

I have taken nothing out of context as you claim I did. This is the original quote I provided:
And he had me against the wall,” Reade continued. “And then his hands were down my skirt and up my skirt. And I was wearing–I wasn’t wearing anything underneath. And then, with his hand, he went from there and entered me–with his hand–and as he was trying to kiss me, and saying things to me.”
Click to expand...
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...X8ZD-yLPwNHCZViE7XqFIxvuIG1DDBBDaXG6WJWuuuu1E

If she had on underwear then her statement that she "wasn't wearing anything underneath" would be untrue. Unless you think that underwear doesn't qualify as wearing something underneath her skirt?

However, I have since listened to the video of her interview yesterday. In that interview, what she actually says is "I wasn't wearing tights or anything..." "Or anything" means she had nothing on underneath. You have to listen carefully but that is what she says at the 5:20 location.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmVUQ7ii3_4&feature=youtu.be
 
Stacyhs said:
I have taken nothing out of context as you claim I did. This is the original quote I provided:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...X8ZD-yLPwNHCZViE7XqFIxvuIG1DDBBDaXG6WJWuuuu1E

If she had on underwear then her statement that she "wasn't wearing anything underneath" would be untrue. Unless you think that underwear doesn't qualify as wearing something underneath her skirt?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I think it means. It matters what she thinks it means.
However, I have since listened to the video of her interview yesterday. In that interview, what she actually says is "I wasn't wearing tights or anything..." "Or anything" means she had nothing on underneath. You have to listen carefully but that is what she says at the 5:20 location.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmVUQ7ii3_4&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

She could mean that to mean "tights or similar." There is ambiguity here.


Not that it matters seeing your whole point is built around an argument from incredulity. It could be she wasn't wearing underwear. Maybe she likes going natural. Who knows.

Incredulity isn't a valid basis for dismissing a person's description of their personal trauma. It can be done in every case. There is always something that can be be unduly scrutinized and use as a basis for incredulity.

These sorts of statements are pretty standard in sexual misconduct cases:

"I don't even own a blue shirt. If someone did something like that to me I'd remember the color of the shirt"

"She didn't seem sad. I would have been sad if that happened to me."

"Afterwards she was nice to him on the phone. She must not have been upset."

"Why would she wait years before saying anything? I would have spoken up."

etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom