Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Sorry Trumpers, you can only use that tactic once. Your boy has proved himself to be an incompetent, dangerous POTUS. We won't be fooled again. Hopefully.
Click to expand...

All of this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Biden campaign and the DNC. Stop trying to blame Bernie Bros and Trumpers for Mr. Electable being a creepy old man.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Riiight, the allegations against the abusive priests is such a questionable story. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Even today it can be pushing **** up hill to het justice for someone with decades old allegations. If it was not for a tipping point where we started listening to allegations like these despite there being no hard evidence against pillars of community we would not have had the deluge of reports,

No, **** the “good old days.”
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Bury your head into the sand while #resistance libs call her a Russian bot. Nothing untoward happening here, certainly not a self-serving ad-hom.

The story should be investigated. Leads that discredit Tara Reade should be pursued and the facts unearthed. I have 0 confidence that someone like the Krassensteins will do anything but muddy the waters. I'll look to real journalists, not opportunistic hacks.

Chris Hayes had a very even handed, nuanced coverage of the allegation as it stands. Hopefully this is the start of the mainstream press actually treating the story seriously and putting journalistic resources into determining the truth.
Click to expand...
Because the press hasn't been covering the story as serious? :confused:

No investigation? :confused:


Sounds to me more that you don't like the results and you want more coverage until someone says it happened.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
This is somewhere near the top of the list of ways not to respond to this.

It wouldn't have happened if she'd been dressed appropriately?

Who are we any more?
Click to expand...

I don't know about you but I know who I am. I've not seen anyone mention her attire until this so maybe that paintbrush is a tad too wide.
 
Dr. Keith said:
... Fail-son nepotism, ...
Click to expand...
Biden's son following his father around getting very lucrative jobs bothers me more than the Reade claim. You can bet that will come out again and again before this is over.

Biden should have put his foot down and said knock it off. But more likely than not Biden told Hunter about certain jobs he might want to apply to.

At least one Biden son didn't avoid military service. That's a plus for a Senator's son.
 
Dr. Keith said:
All of this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Biden campaign and the DNC. Stop trying to blame Bernie Bros and Trumpers for Mr. Electable being a creepy old man.
Click to expand...
Well there was this story: Business Insider: Prominent Bernie Sanders supporters are calling on Joe Biden to drop out of the 2020 race over Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation

I was not blaming anyone, and I'm pretty sure that post made it clear I didn't like the Creepy Joe aspect one bit.

My only point mentioning them and the GOP was just pointing out positions other people are likely motivated to take. I'm not denying my preferred version of the story also. And I cited what I thought was the best evidence.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Biden's son following his father around getting very lucrative jobs bothers me more than the Reade claim. You can bet that will come out again and again before this is over.

Biden should have put his foot down and said knock it off. But more likely than not Biden told Hunter about certain jobs he might want to apply to.

At least one Biden son didn't avoid military service. That's a plus for a Senator's son.
Click to expand...

Don't strip Hunter of his valor now! He proudly served for all of 5 seconds before getting bounced for failing a piss test. One might wonder how someone with a drug waiver managed to secure a direct commission. Surely having a Senator for a daddy doesn't play into these decisions at all.
 
wareyin said:
Have you ever quit a job voluntarily, been forced to quit, and fired all at the same time as well? I find it pretty hard to grok all of those things being true for the same instance.
Click to expand...

It hasn't happened to me personally, but there do seem to be scenarios where the same incident can be described all three ways.

They want to get rid of you, but the fallout from explicitly firing you is undesirable so they reach an arrangement with you where you appear to leave by your own choice. For a while you abide by the agreement and maintain the fiction. But those close to you will be told some or all of the true nature of the separation. As time passes, you become more comfortable disclosing more about what really happened, and less worried about blowback from your former employer. Once you've crossed all the bridges, not burning them is no longer an overriding concern.
 
theprestige said:
It hasn't happened to me personally, but there do seem to be scenarios where the same incident can be described all three ways.

They want to get rid of you, but the fallout from explicitly firing you is undesirable so they reach an arrangement with you where you appear to leave by your own choice. For a while you abide by the agreement and maintain the fiction. But those close to you will be told some or all of the true nature of the separation. As time passes, you become more comfortable disclosing more about what really happened, and less worried about blowback from your former employer. Once you've crossed all the bridges, not burning them is no longer an overriding concern.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any reason why Reade my not be perfectly candid about the reason she left that job. Nothing embarrassing or awkward about that parting of ways.


/s

Pretend for a moment that Reade is telling the truth. Short of making a very public accusation of a Senator that would probably ruin her life, she can't tell the truth why she quit or was fired from that job.

Victims often make up lies to avoid talking about being victimized. Turns out, battered wives weren't falling down stairs all the time. Let's not be obtuse.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
Argument from incredulity noted.

If your relationship with your boss has deteriorated to the point where you re looking for a job, then your boss is likely looking to get rid of you. How the details of that departure play out is largely semantics. Almost nobody is actually fired in the US. You are asked to resign.
Click to expand...

Is it largely semantics whether you are fired or you quit, or is almost nobody actually fired? I know plenty of people who have been fired from jobs over the years. As in "You're Fired" (hey, some jerk should make a TV show based around that as a catchphrase, maybe that could lead to a political career!) not "give me your letter of resignation." I don't doubt that you don't know any, but your experiences aren't universal.


Dr. Keith said:
Does nothing mean nothing at all or no hosiery? I would have assumed that you found the original quote that made it clear that she was completely nude under a short skirt if that is your claim.
Click to expand...

We're discussing Reade's various claims here. In one, she said she had nothing on under her skirt. In another, she claims he pushed aside her underwear. I get that you really want them both to be true, but as that's your stance I think it's on you to somehow make them fit, not me to prove they don't. After you get done with those mental gymnastics, maybe we can get to explaining her explicit denial that the acts towards her were sexual before claiming he sexually assaulted her.

edited to add: The statement that she was wearing nothing was made in this thread back on page 27, but appears to have been a mistake in transcription. I retract that one.

Dr. Keith said:
Neither have I. I have seen someone go from hitting their kid to apologizing, to telling them it was their fault, to saying they didn't really hit them in the span of about 2 minutes. Humans are ******* weird when they know they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Humans are weird, even when they only want someone else to be wrong.

Dr. Keith said:
Being dismissive of personal boundaries is not something I put up with. But, really: which candidate on the Dem side was most likely to be accused of something like this?
Click to expand...

Zero tolerance for being "dismissive" of personal boundaries? Yeah, I can see how such black and white thinking makes someone think touching shoulders is the same as finger-banging. I think most people see a pretty clear difference, though.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It hasn't happened to me personally, but there do seem to be scenarios where the same incident can be described all three ways.

They want to get rid of you, but the fallout from explicitly firing you is undesirable so they reach an arrangement with you where you appear to leave by your own choice. For a while you abide by the agreement and maintain the fiction. But those close to you will be told some or all of the true nature of the separation. As time passes, you become more comfortable disclosing more about what really happened, and less worried about blowback from your former employer. Once you've crossed all the bridges, not burning them is no longer an overriding concern.
Click to expand...

According to the two witnesses who have come forward this week, Reade was claiming she was fired at least as early as 95. She was claiming she quit to be with her boyfriend in 2009, that she quit over Russia in 2018, that she was forced out over refusing to serve drinks in 2019, and that she was fired for reporting Biden in 2020. Which point is the true one that she has become more comfortable with?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
This is somewhere near the top of the list of ways not to respond to this.

It wouldn't have happened if she'd been dressed appropriately?

Who are we any more?
Click to expand...

It's "couldn't", not "wouldn't". As in it would have been physically impossible for what she described to have happened if she was dressed the way women in her position would have normally dressed at the time. Obviously not a beyond a reasonable doubt argument, but it's one more reason to have some doubt about her story.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
It's "couldn't", not "wouldn't". As in it would have been physically impossible for what she described to have happened if she was dressed the way women in her position would have normally dressed at the time. Obviously not a beyond a reasonable doubt argument, but it's one more reason to have some doubt about her story.
Click to expand...
This seems like an argument from stereotype.

The stereotypical 1990s congressional aide wore pantyhose, which casts doubt on this atypical narrative.

If we're going to apply that stereotype, can we apply others? She wasn't wearing hose, so that means she's probably a slut, and this is probably politically motivated regret sex rather than rape-rape?

The stereotypical rape victim tends to suppress the event, misrepresent it, change her story a lot, and refrain from aggressively pursuing justice, which explains almost all the discrepancies in what is in fact a true story?

---

Hell, maybe she was wearing hose, and the elasticity of the gusset allowed some digital penetration anyway, and over the years her recollection has mutated to omit the hose (since they didn't actually prevent the rape).

Maybe the stereotype we should be applying here is that women often misremember and misrepresent things, and it's important to #believenowomen.

Or maybe we should be stereotyping Joe Biden as an rich old white man in a position of power over a woman.

Or maybe the fact that she hadn't tied an onion to her belt, which was the style at the time, is a red herring.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Slate thinks picking Chris Dodd to lead his search for a woman is not a good look for Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent example of biased reporters attempting to smear people because of the actions of other people they're associated with. This is brought forth as an example of the type of thing SuburbanTurkey was against, right?

eta: it's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon smearing, actually. Biden is bad because he hired Dodd who is bad because he associated with Ted Kennedy who did these 2 things. Also Hillary Clinton endorsing Biden is somehow bad for women too.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
That is an excellent example of biased reporters attempting to smear people because of the actions of other people they're associated with. This is brought forth as an example of the type of thing SuburbanTurkey was against, right?

eta: it's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon smearing, actually. Biden is bad because he hired Dodd who is bad because he associated with Ted Kennedy who did these 2 things. Also Hillary Clinton endorsing Biden is somehow bad for women too.
Click to expand...

You mean like fake news?
 
wareyin said:
That is an excellent example of biased reporters attempting to smear people because of the actions of other people they're associated with. This is brought forth as an example of the type of thing SuburbanTurkey was against, right?
Click to expand...

I think they're just pointing out that Chris Dodd's history makes this a PR blunder for Biden.

By picking Dodd to head his search for a woman to join his ticket, he now has to explain to people that Dodd was only ever sexual-abuse-adjacent, and that this shouldn't be held against him in his role of finding a woman for Biden.

This seems like an unnecessary problem for Biden to cause himself. Is there really nobody in his professional circle that doesn't require this kind of "yes he was good friends with Weinstein, but don't hold that against him" damage control?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom