Biden for President?

[TragicMonkey]

Let's all agree that either Biden, Reade, both, or neither really juiced the piglet with this contretemps, and as a result the whole country might be juicing the piglet again this November.

I told you we should have had Warren.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Somehow, I think you think that actually makes sense.

Yeah, noticed the failed syllogism pretty quickly but gotta keep firing off the last word posts for the win.

 

[Stacyhs]

Talk about trying to score points. Calling an investigation of the woman's credibility "doxxing" was about trying to score points.

His message was nothing new or astounding. It was the same old **** being posted over and over here, how dare we look at Reade's this or that.

Fine. What are we supposedly allowed to look at?

Here, let me get you started:
There is a suspiciously linked reason why she was fired. That is not about 'doxxing' her financial troubles.

Those are the kind of answers you get when they have nothing else. Very revealing as to the state of their argument when they have to try to (unsuccessfully) redefine a word with a well-established definition.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This's been replied to already, but I wanted to emphasize something specific----Weinstein and Cosby got caught after being prolific and notorious repeat offenders only after decades of zero consequences. Year after year of never being called to account, always having access to new women.

Also, if one person's claim against another years later is enough to discredit them in your eyes, then why hasn't Hunt's documented claim discredited Reade in your eyes as Reade's undocumented and shifting one has for Biden?

My point is that is was stated that the lack of numerous accusers of Biden suggested it wasn't true.

The most prolific abusers are the most visible. The fact that people like Weinstein and Cosby make the news and get successfully prosecuted doesn't mean that less extreme predators don't exist.

No one else has accused Biden besides Reade. To assume that this must mean Biden didn't do it is a huge speculation.

Kavanaugh had 3 accusers of impropriety. Nowhere near the docket of women that the most notorious serial rapists like Weinstein had.

Clarence Thomas, as far as I know, only had Anita Hill.

If the standard is Weinstein level sexual predation, lots of criminals are going to fall through the cracks.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No, actually. A corporate PR manager would be a well-paid mid-level executive, but not somebody with decision-making authority or an ownership stake. PR generally pays better than small-town newspaper work, but it's not the road to riches. And 40 years ago PR was less of a profession than it is now (if it even is now), which would have helped a small-town sportswriter get the job. He worked for a defense contractor; he himself was not a defense contractor.

But that's a distraction. It doesn't have much to do with the current issue, except to indicate a propensity for exaggeration.

A well paid mid-level executive sounds rich to me. Not independently wealthy and living a life of leisure, but still rich.

All the mid-level executives I've ever encountered in my working career have struck me as pretty rich.

Here's the question. Would you characterize Tara Reade's statement that her father was a powerful, wealthy defense contractor as a lie? At best, it's a bit of hyperbole. He's management at an huge corporation with significant defense contracts. Fits the bill to me.

Waeryin's gish gallop against Reade continues. Now there's this barb about Reade lying about her father. Easy to dump in this thread, longer and much more tedious to parse through. The damage is already done, even as it becomes clear that claim is almost certainly meritless. Off to the next gallop!

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

However, while it was 'known' in the sense that people whispered to each other about it, there was nothing involving the legal system, or anything that hampered their careers in any way whatsoever. They were extremely visible in that they were public figures, but they weren't exactly raping women in public view. Reade is indeed the only woman who has accused Biden. Someone who is a serial hair-sniffer and shoulder-rubber made a huge exception for this one woman, and only this one woman, never deviating from the previous pattern again? And also this one woman has had an accuser of her own, who accuses her (with actual evidence, not like what Reade has) of being a liar and thief. Accusers can be accused, the mere act of making an accusation does not immunize a person from their own victims speaking up.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Its not hard to see the range of behaviour from a once off sexual assault to serial rapist.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, noticed the failed syllogism pretty quickly but gotta keep firing off the last word posts for the win.

What next? Are going to threaten to take your ball and go home?

Instead, why not address some of the points made in my posts that you keep ignoring? Here. I'll make it easy for you:

1. How do you explain Reade charging her personal vet bills to the horse rescue...TWICE? Then saying publicly she'd pay them. But didn't?

2. How do you explain Reade praising Biden for his work on sexual harassment/assault?

3. How do you explain three staffers denying Reade ever approached them about any harassment whatsoever?

4. How do you explain choosing to get a horse instead of paying her car loan?

5. How do you explain getting someone else to start a GoFundMe to help her get away from her abusive husband when he'd divorced her years ago?

Go on. Stop avoiding answering these questions.

 

[Sideroxylon]

What next? Are going to threaten to take your ball and go home?

Instead, why not address some of the points made in my posts that you keep ignoring? Here. I'll make it easy for you:

1. How do you explain Reade charging her personal vet bills to the horse rescue...TWICE? Then saying publicly she'd pay them. But didn't?

2. How do you explain Reade praising Biden for his work on sexual harassment/assault?

3. How do you explain three staffers denying Reade ever approached them about any harassment whatsoever?

4. How do you explain choosing to get a horse instead of paying her car loan?

5. How do you explain getting someone else to start a GoFundMe to help her get away from her abusive husband when he'd divorced her years ago?

Go on. Stop avoiding answering these questions.

Four is the most hilariously irrelevant. But also the most classist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....

Clarence Thomas, as far as I know, only had Anita Hill.

If the standard is Weinstein level sexual predation, lots of criminals are going to fall through the cracks.

Apples and oranges. Thomas got off on trying to get a reaction out of Hill. I don't recall (and maybe I'm wrong) that he ever felt her up, grabbed her pussy or even asked her for sex.

It was all about pubic hairs in his coke and his review of Long Dong Silver videos.

That's a completely different kind of sexual harassment in the workplace.

As for no one else coming forward, how would be know? Not only was there not much of an investigation, Hill was treated horrendously and this was long before #metoo.

Interestingly, there is some very legitimate criticism of Biden for how he ran that hearing. No one seems to care much about that. Guess Reade's story is more titillating.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Four is the most hilariously irrelevant. But also the most classist.

Yes, your point was clear. Someone zeroed in on a pedantic point scoring opportunity and ignored the message.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Enthusiastic user and fan of irony here. No, it isn’t.

Those questions are simply very silly and well beyond a casual nit-picking exercise. That stuff needs multiple doses of a school grade medicated shampoo.

 

[Stacyhs]

My point is that is was stated that the lack of numerous accusers of Biden suggested it wasn't true.

No. I stated that it was a mark in Biden's favor. And it is. For the reasons I stated. Which are also true.

The most prolific abusers are the most visible. The fact that people like Weinstein and Cosby make the news and get successfully prosecuted doesn't mean that less extreme predators don't exist.

Unsubstantiated. Data on the ones who don't get caught is never gathered. If Weinstein's, Cosby's, and Ailes' first accusers had not come out, they would likely still be doing the same thing. Look how many decades they got away with it.
No one said less extreme predators don't exist. What was said was that sexual harassment/assault tends to be a pattern because that mindset does not end after a single incident. I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting what was said. It's a bad habit.

No one else has accused Biden besides Reade. To assume that this must mean Biden didn't do it is a huge speculation.

True. But that was never said. Again, please stop misrepresenting what was said.

Kavanaugh had 3 accusers of impropriety. Nowhere near the docket of women that the most notorious serial rapists like Weinstein had.

And this is relevant why? If all 3 of K's accusers were telling the truth, then that means he was a serial abuser. Does that make him less guilty of sexual assault/harassement than Weinstein?

Clarence Thomas, as far as I know, only had Anita Hill.

She was not the only one.

Angela Wright,

also claimed that Thomas had allegedly said inappropriate things to her while the two worked together at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She, like Hill, was subpoenaed by the Senate to testify against Thomas during his nomination, but was never called upon to do so. The reasons for her exclusion are a matter of debate, but one thing remains clear: Wright still alleges that Thomas made unwanted sexual remarks to her. Here's what she claimed about her experience with Thomas in an interview with NPR in 2007:

"I had gone home, turned on CNN, and saw Anita Hill standing there ... I didn't know her ... But I knew that Clarence Thomas was capable [of what he stood accused of] because he had made similar remarks to me and in my presence about my body and other women's bodies, and he did – he was very egotistical, and he did pressure me to date him, and he did drop by the house when unannounced."

Two other women stated that Thomas' attitude toward women was predatory.

If the standard is Weinstein level sexual predation, lots of criminals are going to fall through the cracks.

No one ever implied or stated that Weinstein is the standard. You do have a habit of exaggerating things. Please stop. And, yes, lots of sexual harassers and sexual assaulters fall through the cracks. Both of mine sure did.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

duplicate the computer claimed wasn't there

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Enthusiastic user and fan of irony here. No, it isn’t.

Those questions are simply very silly and well beyond a casual nit-picking exercise. That stuff needs multiple doses of a school grade medicated shampoo.

I'm not sure it's entirely silly or off topic---it points to her being a thief by taking on a debt (and defaulting) then immediately taking on another debt (horse upkeep) when she already can't keep up with the previous debt. She confirmed her status as thief by lying to trick the charity into paying for her horse when she couldn't (or wouldn't) do so herself.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Well, you're claiming that it didn't have to be more than that, but the illustrations are not actually there. So far we have one claim that possession of marijuana is totally just like a bounced check, and one claim that a bounced check on a closed account that didn't have a court case filed is totally the same as the check fraud case Reade had filed against her. There's also Dr. Keith's bizarre claim that most states have the same program for a bounced check. In opposition, we have quite a few posters from quite a few different states who've never heard of such a thing despite bouncing checks themselves.

I was describing how diversion works based on my own experience with it. I described similarities in the urgency (or lack thereof) of bringing such a matter before the court in a full criminal trial and so pre-trial alternatives can lead to positive outcomes for all parties.

Your willingness to twist my experience into fodder for your own purposes shatters your credibility in terms of engaging in good faith.

This just goes on the pile of how the DP and its cult-minded followers are happy to drag me through the mud for their own gain.

I'm voting for Biden in an R+10 state, though. So there's that...

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'm not sure it's entirely silly or off topic---it points to her being a thief by taking on a debt (and defaulting) then immediately taking on another debt (horse upkeep) when she already can't keep up with the previous debt. She confirmed her status as thief by lying to trick the charity into paying for her horse when she couldn't (or wouldn't) do so herself.

I find it fascinating that people think this behaviour should affect the credibility of someone’s sexual assault claims.

 

[Sideroxylon]

duplicate the computer claimed wasn't there

Yes, seeing some lag while positing currently.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I find it fascinating that people think this behaviour should affect the credibility of someone’s sexual assault claims.

I find it fascinating that some things are supposed to be exempt from credibility and accepted on faith. Are there any other areas beside sexual assault that you think people should accept claims at face value without critical examination?

 

[Sideroxylon]

I find it fascinating that some things are supposed to be exempt from credibility and accepted on faith. Are there any other areas beside sexual assault that you think people should accept claims at face value without critical examination?

“Critical examination” by users in this thread and Twitter outsourcing goes straight in the trash. Most of it is patently absurd. Probably never going to be able to know if Biden sexually assaulted Reade or not. We do need to listen to victims. We don’t need to trash notions of their credibility so absurdly.