Biden for President?

[Puppycow]

I mean, people said the exact same thing about Kavanaugh. The timing of Ford's accusation had some pretty severe political implications, and many wanted to impugn her motives based on this.

I don't give a damn about Kavanaugh and notice that what she did didn't work. It was absolutely politically motivated. She failed to make the case.

Putin's little groupie doesn't impress me either. It's blatantly a political hit job. If she had come forward before the primaries, it would be something to consider, but she did it to attack the Democratic party and support Trump's reelection, probably at the behest of her Russian friends.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

"Newly surfaced video from 1993 appears to feature the mother of Tara Reade, a woman who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, calling into "Larry King Live" to seek advice around the time of the alleged assault."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...-live-1993-over-assault-advice-mj-lee-vpx.cnn

 

[TragicMonkey]

I mean, people said the exact same thing about Kavanaugh. The timing of Ford's accusation had some pretty severe political implications, and many wanted to impugn her motives based on this.

Reade made her accusation a good while ago, but didn't gain much traction. Mainstream news didn't want to touch it, and the TimesUp campaign sent her on a wild goose chase before telling her they wouldn't help her. It's hard to say whether these were intentional efforts to suppress the story, or just that Reade was waffling on whether she wanted to commit to going all the way. Keep in mind, she faces a lot of personal risk and public attention, so some equivocating is to be expected.

Perhaps we should be asking why mainstream press didn't want to cover it. The Intercept is doing good work here by dragging this into daylight. It would have happened sooner, when it was easier to dump Biden, if Reade hadn't encountered so many hurdles.

I like how the entire press suddenly becomes Biden's lackeys when it comes time to blame them for not pursuing this story. Were none of the press pro-Sanders? Or any of the eleventy other candidates? What about almighty FOX News? Why didn't they, champions of the poor downtrodden right, take this story and run with it long, long ago? Don't tell me it was because they wanted to protect Biden!

Chalking total media disinterest up to a pro-Biden slant is ridiculous. The media exists to sell stories. If they'd thought there was anything in it at the time someone would have made a big deal of it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't give a damn about Kavanaugh and notice that what she did didn't work. It was absolutely politically motivated. She failed to make the case.

Putin's little groupie doesn't impress me either. It's blatantly a political hit job. If she had come forward before the primaries, it would be something to consider, but she did it to attack the Democratic party and support Trump's reelection, probably at the behest of her Russian friends.

This puts the Democratic party in a tough spot, because their very vocal position was that Ford did make her case and that Republicans don't care about rape.

I like how the entire press suddenly becomes Biden's lackeys when it comes time to blame them for not pursuing this story. Were none of the press pro-Sanders? Or any of the eleventy other candidates? What about almighty FOX News? Why didn't they, champions of the poor downtrodden right, take this story and run with it long, long ago? Don't tell me it was because they wanted to protect Biden!

Chalking total media disinterest up to a pro-Biden slant is ridiculous. The media exists to sell stories. If they'd thought there was anything in it at the time someone would have made a big deal of it.

Sure, there is probably a good journalism case to be made to not run the story as originally presented, lacking any firm corroboration and details.

But then again, it doesn't help that you have Washington Post headline writers bending themselves into pretzels to come up with headlines like this:

Developments in allegations against Biden amplify efforts to question his behavior

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/developments-in-allegations-against-biden-amplify-efforts-to-question-his-behavior/2020/04/27/88869bc2-88be-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_politics&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Looks like the headline has been changed after being rightly mocked, but you can see it in the website link what was originally there.

This is such tortured way to bury the lede about this story. Stinks to high heaven.

 

[Puppycow]

This puts the Democratic party in a tough spot, because their very vocal position was that Ford did make her case and that Republicans don't care about rape.

That was never my position. I don't need to defend a position I never took. I was skeptical of the whole exercise, but I mainly kept my mouth shut on the subject at the time. If it wasn't going to be Kavanaugh, it could have been any other person on the Federalist's society short list who would be a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court. It made no sense strategically, because even if Kavanaugh had withdrawn, another conservative would have gotten the seat.

 

[shuttlt]

It made no sense strategically, because even if Kavanaugh had withdrawn, another conservative would have gotten the seat.

Maybe stopping a conservative getting onto the Supreme Court wasn't the strategic objective?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That was never my position. I don't need to defend a position I never took. I was skeptical of the whole exercise, but I mainly kept my mouth shut on the subject at the time. If it wasn't going to be Kavanaugh, it could have been any other person on the Federalist's society short list who would be a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court. It made no sense strategically, because even if Kavanaugh had withdrawn, another conservative would have gotten the seat.

I didn't mean to imply you had to defend this, sorry. I'm more thinking about the position the Democratic party leaders now find themselves in.

Democrats really can't take the position you take because how the party strongly endorsed Ford's accusations. They did not approach Ford's accusations with skepticism and nuance, so for them to try to split hairs now with Reade smacks of insincerity.

I was actually a bit sympathetic to their precarious position when this story first came out. While I didn't dismiss Reade's accusations outright, it was tough decision on how to deal with a fairly uncorroborated accusation with seemingly no hope of clarity.

Now that we have these two points of corroboration from the 90's, I don't see how the D's can bury this story without coming across as massive hypocrites.

I don't know what their strategy can be other than to treat this as a credible accusation of sexual assault and demand accountability from Biden. What other option do they have now that doesn't massively discredit them on the issue of sexual impropriety?

 

[wareyin]

Some people may remember things differently and feel that at some times there is a much greater willingness to believe and be outraged than at other times. I don't intend to have the debate again, but it's pretty clear that some people are going to take the view that the Democratic establishment are massive self serving hypocrites. Whether that's enough people to matter we will have to wait and see. At the very least, we can perhaps empathise with people who take this view? Not you, wareyin, obviously... but maybe other people.


I'm not arguing that convenient rationalizations can't be convincing to people who want to be convinced by them. It is always easier to be convinced of things that it is convenient to believe.

It is certainly clear that some people want to believe the massively wrong things they claim they remember, but why should we empathize with them? Especially here, on a skeptic site, where we don't just accept completely BS claims like those you made?

 

[wareyin]

I didn't mean to imply you had to defend this, sorry.

Democrats really can't take the position you take because how the party strongly endorsed Ford's accusations. They did not approach Ford's accusations with skepticism and nuance, so for them to try to split hairs now with Reade smacks of insincerity.

I was actually a bit sympathetic to their precarious position when this story first came out. While I didn't dismiss Reade's accusations outright, it was tough decision on how to deal with a fairly uncorroborated accusation with seemingly no hope of clarity.

Now that we have these two points of corroboration from the 90's, I don't see how the D's can bury this story without coming across as massive hypocrites.

Nobody is burying the story. Also, you seem to think that the Larry King call corroborates assault, when all it really corroborates is "some sort of story." The anonymous woman never mentioned assault, sexual or otherwise.

 

[shuttlt]

It is certainly clear that some people want to believe the massively wrong things they claim they remember, but why should we empathize with them? Especially here, on a skeptic site, where we don't just accept completely BS claims like those you made?

This is very clearly not a skeptics site.

 

[Puppycow]

Maybe stopping a conservative getting onto the Supreme Court wasn't the strategic objective?

Then what was it?

I can think of other motivations, I seem to recall a GoFundMe campaign, but what were you thinking of?

 

[Puppycow]

I didn't mean to imply you had to defend this, sorry. I'm more thinking about the position the Democratic party leaders now find themselves in.

Democrats really can't take the position you take because how the party strongly endorsed Ford's accusations. They did not approach Ford's accusations with skepticism and nuance, so for them to try to split hairs now with Reade smacks of insincerity.

I was actually a bit sympathetic to their precarious position when this story first came out. While I didn't dismiss Reade's accusations outright, it was tough decision on how to deal with a fairly uncorroborated accusation with seemingly no hope of clarity.

Now that we have these two points of corroboration from the 90's, I don't see how the D's can bury this story without coming across as massive hypocrites.

I don't know what their strategy can be other than to treat this as a credible accusation of sexual assault and demand accountability from Biden. What other option do they have now that doesn't massively discredit them on the issue of sexual impropriety?

Nothing substantial is corroborated, much less proven as far as I know.

Why do you suppose her story keeps changing?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nothing substantial is corroborated, much less proven as far as I know.

Why do you suppose her story keeps changing?

For the same reason that women don't accuse powerful men in general, it draws tremendous amount of backlash and shame on the victim.

I can easily see why a woman might trickle truth an allegation like this. It's extremely embarrassing and intimidating to discuss such intimate and personal details publicly. That she initially was only willing to talk about unwanted sexual harassment before committing to the sexual assault story is not something I find particularly alarming. Who wants to talk about how some creep jammed fingers up their privates on the national stage? It's a huge personal risk to make such accusations, and downplaying the severity of the alleged impropriety could easily be explained as the actions of someone intimidated by such risks.

Short of Biden admitting it, nothing will ever be proven. It would probably be hard to prove even if it was reported and investigated at the time, and passing decades only makes things worse.

Intrinsic in the #MeToo movement is the frustration with the lack of recourse so many of these women have. Often it's because of a culture of permissiveness when it comes to men, especially powerful men, to do these things. But even then, there is a real problem with dealing with many of these cases because they often boil down to unprovable actions that take place in private. That's a difficult problem to grapple with, but women are demanding that it be addressed. There's no easy solution that I can see.

 

[Puppycow]

This is very clearly not a skeptics site.

Lol

 

[theprestige]

Now that we have these two points of corroboration from the 90's, I don't see how the D's can bury this story without coming across as massive hypocrites.

If there's one thing we should know by now, about American politics, it's that looking like a hypocrite simply doesn't matter. If the Dems can reduce this scandal to a matter of coming across like massive hypocrites, then they've basically won. Biden is in the clear, and Reade no longer matters.

 

[theprestige]

Nothing substantial is corroborated, much less proven as far as I know.

Why do you suppose her story keeps changing?

How does her story keep changing?

She talks about a trunk here, a tail there, but it's all the same elephant.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If there's one thing we should know by now, about American politics, it's that looking like a hypocrite simply doesn't matter. If the Dems can reduce this scandal to a matter of coming across like massive hypocrites, then they've basically won. Biden is in the clear, and Reade no longer matters.

I'm not sure I agree. Being seen as a hypocrite on these things hurts Democrats more than Republicans, who really have entered the age of political nihilism under Trump.

 

[wareyin]

How does her story keep changing?

She talks about a trunk here, a tail there, but it's all the same elephant.

She claims that she quit the job to move across country with her boyfriend, that she quit the job because she was unhappy with how the Washington elites treated Putin, and that she was fired.
She claims that she wore nothing under her skirt, and that he pushed aside her underwear.
She claims that Biden sneered that she meant nothing to him after the incident, and that Biden comforted her after the incident.
There is also a cloud of confusion over whether she filed a complaint with the Senate naming Biden or alleging sexual assault at the time, and even whether she named Biden in the police report she filed this month over the alleged 1993 incident.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The difference is that Kavanaugh had to sit for Senate approval, so there was a mechanism to make him face prolonged questioning on the matter. Kavanaugh's moments of entitled rage only came after fairly brutal scrutiny that he couldn't really escape from.

AS a seasoned litigator who found a spot on a federal bench, I feel like a bit of time being questioned and repeating your same response over and over again really shouldn't be that hard.

I'm not a litigator and I pulled it off back when the wife and kids wanted to go to Disney World in July. And it went on for days and I never broke down in a moment of entitled rage.

Biden has an option that Kavanaugh did not, he can just keep his head down and not address the scandal. At least, he can do this for a while. He might have the ability to stall long enough that replacing him as the candidate is no longer an option.

No, quite the opposite. Kavenaugh only had to keep his **** together for a few days. Biden will be open to questioning over this matter for months and he will have to repeat his response with clarity and compassion in every interview between now and November. This isn't about the party anymore, this is about the presidency.

The question becomes, will the party do anything about it? Biden's best interests are clear. He doesn't benefit from dropping out. Poor odds in the general is better than being replaced now and having no chance of becoming president. The party might find that their odds are better with a non-rape candidate, so there could be conflict here.

Oh, the party can't do anything about it. They are stuck with Mr. Electable.

Of course, even if he successfully cans this thing up and prevents attacks from his own party, Trump is going to talk about it nonstop in the general. I doubt rape-averse voters are going to prefer Trump, but dragging Biden through the mud (perhaps correctly) as a creepy old rapist could certainly demoralize voters and depress turnout.

Time to put the "lesser of two evils" line to the test. Biden is only credibly accused of one sexual assault, so he's less evil. Please vote blue.

Yep. And really the Dems don't deserve to win this one. Trump blew up Biden's campaign early with the Ukraine stuff but instead of seeing a steaming pile that they were both rolling around in, some Dems saw that Biden won that tussle in the crap. He was the best pig rolling around in the **** with Trump, while the rest of the candidates were too smart to be pulled into the ****. Let's kiss the guy covered in ******

And he knew about Reade. His people knew about Reade. But he put his hat in the ring anyway because he cares more about his legacy than he does the party or the people he has to trample to get to the top.

I think we all get to pat ourselves on the back when we vote for the slightly less egotistical creepy old man in November.

 

[Meadmaker]

If there's one thing we should know by now, about American politics, it's that looking like a hypocrite simply doesn't matter. If the Dems can reduce this scandal to a matter of coming across like massive hypocrites, then they've basically won. Biden is in the clear, and Reade no longer matters.

I wonder if the reason for that is that, when it comes right down to it, no one really cares. In other words, the outrage is the hypocritical part, not the denial when "your team" is the target.

I for one watched the long ago Clarence Thomas hearings and found myself saying, "Even if he did all that, so what?" Bill Clinton? "Why am I being told about this?" Brett Kavanaugh? "Jesus Christ he was 17 or 18 years old, and he didn't actually rape anyone. Why would I care?" Donald Trump and the famous "Access Hollywood" tape? "Uhhh…..And?" Donald Trump and the various groping allegations? "That is so rude, but not something I'm going to get all upset about." (The truth is I've groped women without asking consent, and on exactly one occasion, I discovered I didn't have it.) Donald Trump and the allegation of actual rape? Now on that one, if you could prove it happened, I would say throw the bum out of office and into jail. Rape really is different than groping, in my opinion.

So now Joe Biden, and some pretty intense unwanted touching? Yeah, that's bad. Almost thirty years ago? I just can't get really worked up about it today, even if it's true.

On that note, do you know what I think the worst part of the Biden story is? It's the "You are nothing to me" comment. It's one thing to think some girl is into you and make a move that goes way, way, beyond acceptable, but to follow it up with that? That's really bad. It's also the least believable part of the story.

Anyway, I wonder if the outrage in any of these cases is actually real in the first place. If you met someone and he told you a story of how, 2/3 of his lifetime ago, when 17 years old, he told you about how he got totally wasted at a party and jumped on this one girl, would you stop being his friend? I don't think I would. If someone else told you he did it, but he denied it, would you stop being his friend? If they could convince me that he was lying, that might have an effect, just because of the lying aspect, but the actual event wouldn't cause me to get bent out of shape.