|
Somfin posted:I meant the whole quote, like, from open block to close block. I'm guessing that you didn't write that summary yourself. Is some part of it inconsistent with the known facts or is there some other reason why you are not answering the question. https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:How kind of you to defend the rights of poor impoverished naif Joe Biden then. If the best we can hope for is another mayor pete then i hope climate change wipes us out first.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
Joe Biden is a great candidate because ______________ I have literally never seen someone fill in the blank without using the word Trump
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
I love ("love") how Reade's character needs to be thoroughly examined, and any flaws have to be litigated over and over again. But Biden's character doesn't seem to enter into it. The guy's a liar! He lies constantly, over and over again, in well-documented ways, even to the point of pretending to have lived the life of Neil Kinnock. He's got a long history of being a gigantic creep, both in front of and away from cameras. But Reade might have made some weird tweets? She didn't respond to trauma in the approved manner? Well, gee, I just don't know about her credibility...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:There's usually a step where people say she might be misremembering that someone else probably did it, but you've got the general trend. Ah! You’re right! How could I have forgotten the stone cold classic “she was all hopped up on goofballs! It coulda been anyone!”
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Luckily for the good people of SA, being "a creep" is not illegal or indicative of any specific wrongdoing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Somfin posted:So what is your actual timeline for this lie What are you asking me exactly? What lie are you referring too? To be clear, I am unsure of what occurred between them in 1993 and I don't have enough information to determine that at the moment. The stuff I have read has - at least so far - just made me more confused and that's why I am asking questions like is this multiple twitter personalities thing true? Here's a good timeline of events, A Timeline Of Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegations Against Joe Biden
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Pick posted:Is some part of it inconsistent with the known facts or is there some other reason why you are not answering the question. Weird, that summary doesn't match the one you quoted. But it does match the one on Forbes, and that summary goes into some detail about the 1993 call to Larry King Live, something you and Scientist Al Gore are very reluctant to explain. Before I engage with anyone who is questioning why a sexual assault victim might have withheld information when speaking to different people I'd like them to explain the 1993 call.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:There's usually a step where people say she might be misremembering that someone else probably did it, but you've got the general trend. I wish I could remember more of the defenses for Kavanaugh all those years ago, those ones were goofy as hell. All I really remember was some guy who wanted to hire a pre-teen girl to wander around a dark neighborhood, for reasons. I guess "Tara Reade is a secret twitter russian" is the replacement for those ones.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FredTJoseph/status/1255908717620576263?s=19 I'd make some effortpost about how  this is, but... seriously, I just can't right now.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:I love ("love") how Reade's character needs to be thoroughly examined, and any flaws have to be litigated over and over again. Remember when Biden boldface lied about his voting record in a debate with Bernie and the moderator just let him.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:same. i think something did happen and she got fired for reporting it. so their is there is shittyness on bidens part no matter what. there is more evidence for harassment and retaliation and firing than for rape biden should be rejected from the nomination for harassment, let alone retaliation there is sufficient evidence for the rape allegation / insufficient evidence against that i believe it, given the baseline we as human beings should work with
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Pick posted:Luckily for the good people of SA, being "a creep" is not illegal or indicative of any specific wrongdoing. sadly for Joe Biden, it appears to be a reason to vote for someone else
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Weird, that summary doesn't match the one you quoted. But it does match the one on Forbes, and that summary goes into some detail about the 1993 call to Larry King Live, something you and Scientist Al Gore are very reluctant to explain. Was the summary in any way inaccurate? If the summary is not inaccurate, based on the two direct sources provided, then the question is very simple. Which of those Reades should have been believed, given one of them said something inherently untrue given the statements provided by the other? The rest of the article, nor is its publisher, relevant if you accept those two primary sources. Go ahead and not think about that quote, then, and use the two primary sources. Should the Reade from the linked call be believed, or the Reade from the Union article? If you didn't read either, it seems very odd that you would claim to be informed about the available evidence, since that is the available evidence in its primary format.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:there is more evidence for harassment and retaliation and firing than for rape Do you happen to have any of the articles you've read bookmarked perhaps? Or if anyone does I'd like really to read through in detail.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Do you happen to have any of the articles you've read bookmarked perhaps? Or if anyone does I'd like really to read through in detail. maybe later tonight, but i was also planning to do some more states for the drat convention thread, so  whatever I get round to, whenever i get round to it
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:But Biden's character doesn't seem to enter into it. The guy's a liar! He lies constantly, over and over again, in well-documented ways, even to the point of pretending to have lived the life of Neil Kinnock. He's got a long history of being a gigantic creep, both in front of and away from cameras. We also know Tara Reade is a liar based on her internally inconsistent testimony, which I linked from its primary sources. *Again, not that they're different versions of events. They fundamentally cannot both be true.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
Pick posted:We also know Tara Reade is a liar based on her internally inconsistent testimony, which I linked from its primary sources. quote:She didn't respond to trauma in the approved manner? Well, gee, I just don't know about her credibility...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
this discourse is very good because it should illuminate to everyone (whose brain hasn’t already been overtaken by the worms) that the liberal objection to Trump is entirely an aesthetic one. The second their guy is credibly accused of rape they start to sound exactly like the reddit MRAs and MAGA chuds they claim to hate so much. Why’d she wait so long?!? Her story keeps changing!!! The bitch is a liar!!! etc etc etc e: 🎵I know why ~~~🎵 VVVV (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
Pick posted:Should the Reade from the linked call be believed, or the Reade from the Union article? You can easily believe both of them, if all you assume is that she withheld the full rape story from the Union article. Can you try, please, to explain how the 1993 Larry King call fits into your assessment that she's making it up? This is a super heavy sticking point for me and I don't understand why people aren't engaging with it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
It's pretty incredible to watch people decide to actually take a stand and say that Joe Biden is not a rapist and that Tara Reade is a suspicious lying Russian agent. Wasn't sure what the new thread would bring, but I guess since we're talking about the general now and not the primary it's finally time to go full mask off and double-tap metoo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:If president Biden doesn't sign benefit cuts as part of some Grand Bargain to balance the budget I'll eat this banana on my head. Exactly. He sells himself now as the Grand Bargain candidate. If Trump wins again, it will be suicide for the GOP to do anything other than the most modest cuts, and the Dems will be obligated to fight that. If Biden wins, he will press the Dems to Grand Bargain.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
That is not the content of the primary sources. She claimed, initially, that quote:In June 1993 Reade found herself in an office without windows. Two months later she left Biden’s office, she said. That is from her article with her hometown newspaper, The Union. Later, she claimed to have been violated with Biden's hand. These two testimonies are inherently incompatible. As a person in possession of a vagina, I am also having trouble logistically working out how this played out, but that's part of a continuing conversation with peers in possession of this organ.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:If the best we can hope for is another mayor pete then i hope climate change wipes us out first. Does anyone really think it won't be Mayor Pete in 2024? He has the backing of the establishment and corporates, and now has name recognition, and will spend the next 4 years doing things like filling in for Jimmy Kimmel to continue to build that name recognition and increase his likeability. Everyone else is going to be playing catch-up trying to raise as much money or get their name out of there.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You can easily believe both of them, if all you assume is that she withheld the full rape story from the Union article. supports the retaliation/harassment claims, not the rape claim, necessarily her mum says "a thing happened and it sucked and the senate office trashed her for it and it sucked" and the thing may have been 'just' harassment and the followup was 'just' crushing the career of a young woman who wanted to be deeply involved in Democratic politics but while a history of harassment and retaliation and contempt isn't, you know, great for "Joe Biden didn't rape anybody", you can see where people are coming from when they shrug i think the shruggers are wrong to do so, i don't think there's nearly enough evidence to disbelieve Tara Reade edit: and there's some definite evidence for the rape allegation: anonymous friend, definitely neighbor, maybe mother, maybe brother which is way more than enough for me Son of Thunderbeast posted:It's pretty incredible to watch people decide to actually take a stand and say that Joe Biden is not a rapist and that Tara Reade is a suspicious lying Russian agent. Wasn't sure what the new thread would bring, but I guess since we're talking about the general now and not the primary it's finally time to go full mask off and double-tap metoo. this is modhat off but i think you're misrepresenting the posts you happen not to actually quote Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 03:16 on May 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Pick posted:These two testimonies are inherently incompatible. They're really not.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You can easily believe both of them, if all you assume is that she withheld the full rape story from the Union article. Her mom claimed something happened. I think something did. I think her original testimony is consistent with the Larry King call. It is possible that she was sexually assaulted but I do not believe the King call is evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Remember when a bunch of women accused Biden of inappropriate conduct and there was an effort to downplay and smear them, then some Tara person chimed in that she too had suffered similar harassment? Maybe it's not easy for someone to come out and admit in excruciating detail what all happened to them in the national spotlight knowing many will try to destroy their life and reputation. Remember Biden's first public appearance after that he made a bunch of jokes about consent including with a child? What a stand up guy.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Somfin posted:They're really not. Claiming you weren't sexualized and that you were "like a lamp" is not consistent with "forced me against a wall, kissed me without consent, inserted his fingers into my vagina, and yelled 'you're nothing!' when I did not reciprocate".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You can easily believe both of them, if all you assume is that she withheld the full rape story from the Union article. The call does not necessarily mean that she hasn't embellished her testimony or that it even involved Biden himself.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Pick posted:That is not the content of the primary sources. She claimed, initially, that Yes, people sometimes react to trauma in different ways. They might lie to themselves. Try to convince themselves it was something it wasn't. Or try to pretend it was something less than it was, to push the trauma down or to reject the label of victim. Sometimes rape or abuse victims will interact with their rapists in a friendly manner the very next day, because that kind of trauma can be difficult to process. None of this is even uncommon. Oh, right, and there's also this... hobotrashcanfires posted:Maybe it's not easy for someone to come out and admit in excruciating detail what all happened to them in the national spotlight knowing many will try to destroy their life and reputation. So, again... quote:She didn't respond to trauma in the approved manner? Well, gee, I just don't know about her credibility... Falstaff fucked around with this message at 03:18 on May 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Gadfly posted:Exactly. He sells himself now as the Grand Bargain candidate. If Trump wins again, it will be suicide for the GOP to do anything other than the most modest cuts, and the Dems will be obligated to fight that. If Biden wins, he will press the Dems to Grand Bargain. Why would it be suicide for them to do anything other than modest cuts? Trump is not going to have to worry about re-election and doing things that might be used to attack him, so he is more likely to sign off on whatever McConnell wants as long as McConnell doesn't get in the way of letting Stephen Miller do what he wants.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Does anyone really think it won't be Mayor Pete in 2024? He has the backing of the establishment and corporates, and now has name recognition, and will spend the next 4 years doing things like filling in for Jimmy Kimmel to continue to build that name recognition and increase his likeability. Everyone else is going to be playing catch-up trying to raise as much money or get their name out of there. He will definitely try, I don't think he'll come anywhere near being the nominee.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Yes, people sometimes react to trauma in different ways. They might lie to themselves. Try to convince themselves it was something it wasn't. Or try to pretend it was something less than it was, to push the trauma down or to reject the label of victim. Sometimes rape or abuse victims will interact with their rapists in a friendly manner the very next day, because that kind of trauma can be difficult to process. None of this is even uncommon. It is true that someone can tell themselves very different versions of the same story. However, if you are going to make an allegation of sexual assault, I think it is only fair for the person who you are accusing to point out incidences where you went on the record denying that they committed sexual assault.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
Pick posted:It is true that someone can tell themselves very different versions of the same story. However, if you are going to make an allegation of sexual assault, I think it is only fair for the person who you are accusing to point out incidences where you went on the record denying that this person has committed sexual assault against them. You're not Joe Biden, so why are you doing it for him? Why hasn't his campaign already done it?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
Hold on guys, I gotta post excitedly and intensely about defending rapists and not trusting their victims.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:You're not Joe Biden, so why are you doing it for him? Why hasn't his campaign already done it? Women who have worked for him and women who currently work with him, including women who take sexual assault allegations seriously and who I trust to act in good faith, like Gillibrand, have already done this. I am doing this because I legitimately believe in due process, in evidence, and in sexual assault being treated as a serious enough crime that an accusation must be evaluated seriously and not be accepted or rejected on the grounds of its political convenience.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Pick posted:It is true that someone can tell themselves very different versions of the same story. However, if you are going to make an allegation of sexual assault, I think it is only fair for the person who you are accusing to point out incidences where you went on the record denying that they committed sexual assault. The simplest reason is that she's accusing someone who is very powerful and well-connected, and so he (or his allies) had been applying pressure on her to keep her testimony either absent or limited. In a vacuum it would be fair to poke holes in her testimony, but she's currently a highly visible target to a lot of really lovely people for something that is unlikely to benefit her in any way and will almost definitely force her to move and functionally disappear from public life, so ... I'm not really sure why you would think she'd opt into that unless she had a pretty good reason. Nobody who lived through Dr. Ford's testimony would fool themselves into thinking it would be some kind of glamorous take down, so for her to have led with a smaller crime (harassment and retribution) only to reveal it was a larger one later on tracks pretty well with how people come to terms with what they believe will be extremely difficult situations. Like how lots of gay people come out as bi first, for a crude example.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
Pick posted:It is true that someone can tell themselves very different versions of the same story. However, if you are going to make an allegation of sexual assault, I think it is only fair for the person who you are accusing to point out incidences where you went on the record denying that they committed sexual assault. Why do you think the Biden campaign lied about the New York Times investigating it and saying it was false?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
joepinetree posted:Why do you think the Biden campaign lied about the New York Times investigating it and saying it was false? I would not have phrased it that way but I do think that the tone of the NYT article is that the accusation was not inherently credible. Obviously no one should say it was proven false. It can't be proven false.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 03:27
|
|