Malbec said:
Osodecentx said:
Jinx 2 said:
Some of you fellas have Jinx derangment syndome.
Combined with Hillary derangement syndrome, Bill derangement syndrome, Obama derangement syndrome and Pelosi derangement syndrome. Nothing ANY of those people do or say is ever acceptable to you folks, and you're shocked that some people feel the same way about Donald Trump As if it's behavior you don't understand, with all the slobbering, dog-whistle posts about Pelosi, "Killary," "Obummer," etc. If I'm the kettle, you guys are all boiling pots. (Had to stop myself from saying 'Chamber Pots" which dates my time at Baylor...)
I've made it clear I make my voting decisions based on policy.
I didn't love Hillary Clinton as a candidate. I don't think she's nearly as heinous as the HDS contintent on this site does. I faulted her for being part of what I considered "the committee of insiders" in the Democratic party who knew best about everything, except when they didn't, which was too often. Hillary really screwed up our last, best change for healthcare reform during Bill's administration. She ran a campaign that was (IMO) cold and tone-deaf. She's a cold fish. But she promised to take action on climate change--my biggest issue--and I believed she would at least try, and that she could stand up to the heinous Mitch McConnell.
Running against Trump--a populist to called climate change "a hoax"--she was clearly going to get my vote. Not because I loved her and thought she was a terrific candidate. But because I thought we'd be better off in 4 years under her leadership than Trump's, and I didn't fear that her administraiton would undermine American democracyc, the rule of law, our system of justice, our global stature as a nation and superpower, and our ability to field competent (not perfect, but competent) intelligence and foreign services worldwide, a really important asset IMO).
Right now, I support Biden because the candidacy is between him and Bernie Sanders, and according to this poll - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/ - I agree with Biden on 12 out of 20 policy positions and with Sanders only on 6. I was disappointed Mike Bloomberg's candidacy didn't take off; I agreed with him on (I think) 14 policy positions.That really is how I decide who to vote for.
If Biden indeed assaulted this woman, I don't think he will be running against Trump. I don't want a choice between two populists, and I really don't like Sanders on a visceral, not totally logical level, because I think running for president, for him, is too much about him and not enough about the country--the same trait I fault Trump for. I want a president who's running because he has a sincere vocation for public service. Biden fits that way more than Trump.
So I'm hoping we'll end up with a good moderate Democrat running that Democrats and "never Trump" republicans can support. The "never trumpers" don't like Trump, but they think Sanders is scary, and they'll either stay home, hold their nose and vote for Trump, or write in someone capable of being presidential who they can vote for in good conscience. That happens, and we lose this election.
Reasonable answer and as straight forward as many I've read here
The whole answer boiled down to, 'It doesn't matter whether I believe her or not, or whether Biden did it or not, because...'
Quote:
I've made it clear I make my voting decisions based on policy.
If that were indeed not a lie, Jinx would never complain about Trump for anything outside of his policy positions. Right?
Wrong. I clearly stated that "If Biden indeed assaulted this woman, I don't think he will be running against Trump."
What I could add is that you and other Trump supporters clearly don't care who Trump ****s or assaults or whether or not he's married when he does it. You're throwing stones from a glass White House.
I know that you and the HDS/BDS/ODS/PDS and whoever-else-the-right-wing-press is demonizing DS boys don't believe the mainstream media, but I believe the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, the PBS Newshour, NPR, the New Yorker, The Atlantic, the Guardian, the New York Times Review of Books and a number of other papers and sources are credible. They haven't picked up this story yet, and I believe they will if their reporters find it credible.
Here's what Salon said:
https://www.salon.com/2020/03/31/a-woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-all-hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/1. Is the mainstream media burying Reade's story out of loyalty to Biden and/or hatred of Sanders? That's unlikely. Here's why.There's a reason why mainstream journalists such as Ronan Farrow of the New Yorker and
Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey of the New York Times all Pulitzer Prize winners for their meticulous coverage of the 2017 Harvey Weinstein investigation are so careful when reporting allegations of sexual harassment and assault. (Salon is not addressing any individual outlet's choice not to cover this specific story, but the general considerations typically involved in such a decision.) It's not just about fairness to the accused, but also to the accusers. Women who tell these stories inevitably get blasted by skeptics who pick their stories apart, so it's critical to their safety that the reporting holds up under close scrutiny. That's only going to be more true when the story has major political implications or confusing twists that could be interpreted as red flags or both, like this one does.
Reade's story of what happened during her tenure working for Biden has changed over time. In April of 2019,
Reade spoke to a local Nevada County paper, claiming
Biden "would touch me on the shoulder or hold his hand on my shoulder running his index finger up my neck during a meeting."
She also recounted an incident where she says she was told by staff that she had to serve drinks at a Biden event because he "liked my legs." She told Salon she rejected this request and complained directly to supervisors Marianne Baker and Dennis Toner. Reade says that her complaints led to being sidelined and pushed out of Biden's office. Both Baker and Toner denied to Salon ever having such a conversation with Reade.
Reade's April 2019 account of why she left Biden's office also conflicts with earlier things she has written. In
a December 2018 Medium post she's since deleted, Reade wrote that she quit working for Biden to pursue a vocation in the arts and because she loves "Russia with all my heart" and rejected "the reckless imperialism of America" and what she saw as an anti-Russian view on Capitol Hill.
Before 2019, Reade lived under another name she changed it for many years to escape an abusive husband, and provided the paperwork demonstrating this to Salon and her public statements about Biden were entirely positive. After making her April 2019 allegations that Biden had touched her inappropriately, Reade spent months tweeting that story, dozens of times, at various figures politicians, celebrities, media outlets,
even Donald Trump to no response.
Under both her current and prior name, Reade has expressed public support for a variety of Democratic politicians in the past, ranging from Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson. Then, over the past few months, Reade began heavily retweeting pro-Sanders accounts and regularly engaging with prominent Sanders supporters like Halper. It was during this time that Reade started to hint publicly that what happened with Biden had been far more serious than her 2019 story detailed. Such hinting led as Reade told Salon, which Halper confirmed to an anonymous woman suggesting that Reade seek Halper out to tell her full story.
When asked why her story had changed so much in the past year, Reade told Salon that she had considered describing the assault to the original reporter from the Nevada County paper, but the "way he asked the questions" had "shut me down." (That reporter did not respond to Salon's request for comment.) She also said she felt intimidated by social media attacks and threats in the aftermath of her original accusations, and therefore stayed silent.
The timeline shows that Reade's involvement in the online world of Bernie fandom coincided with her escalation of accusations against Biden. To be clear, this does not mean she's lying. But taken along with the other discrepancies in Reade's accounts which are also, on their own, not reasons to discredit her it's enough to make publications take a slow and careful approach to amplifying this story.
"Other outlets, for good reason, do their own reporting on stories like this," Grim told Salon. "As they do, I expect we'll see more coverage."
Here's a more critical take from a Guardian commentator, which I think this valid:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claimsRightwing news outlets have gleefully seized upon the accusations against Biden; the story has also been discussed by
leftwing commentators. However, the mainstream media has largely ignored the allegations. Instead there have been headlines like
The top 10 women Joe Biden might pick as VP (CNN) and
Joe Biden's inner circle: No longer a boy's club (AP).
It is hugely frustrating to see conservatives, who couldn't give a damn about the multiple sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump, weaponize the accusations against Biden. However, it's also frustrating to see so many liberals turning a blind eye. The accusations against the former vice-president are serious; why aren't they being taken seriouslyOne obvious reason is that Reade's accusations are very hard to prove. The incident happened a long time ago and there weren't any witnesses. Reade also gave a slightly different version of events last year; she
accused Biden of touching her neck and shoulders in a way that was inappropriate and uncomfortable, but did not say anything sexual took place. This inconsistency obviously doesn't mean she's lying; unfortunately, it is easy to use against her.
Reade's story may be impossible to verify, but this is the case with the vast majority of sexual assault allegations. It is nearly always a case of "he said, she said" and it is nearly always the "he' that is automatically believed. The #MeToo mantra "Believe Women" doesn't mean that women never lie; it means that our systems of power are biased towards believing men never lie. It means that it takes decades of allegations and scores of women coming forward for powerful men like Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Cosby to be brought to justice. All the mantra means is that you shouldn't automatically disbelieve women.
You know who has talked publicly about the importance of taking women seriously? Biden. During the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Biden stood up for Dr Christine Blasey Ford,
noting: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real."
Does this presumption not apply when the guy being accused is a Democrat running for president? It would seem that way. In January, according to
reporting from the Intercept, Reade asked for help from the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which has supported accusers of high-profile people like Weinstein. Reade was reportedly told by the National Women's Law Center, the organization within which the Time's Up fund is housed, that it couldn't assist with accusations against a presidential candidate because it would jeopardize their non-profit status. The Intercept further notes that "the public relations firm that works on behalf of the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund is SKDKnickerbocker, whose managing director, Anita Dunn, is the top adviser to Biden's presidential campaign".
There are some people who will insist that drawing attention to the new allegations against Biden is playing into the Republicans' hands. That it will destroy Biden's campaign and guarantee us four more years of Trump.
Not only is that argument hypocritical, it is also hugely unlikely that Reade's accusations will do any damage whatsoever to Biden's ambitions. Allegations of sexual assault certainly haven't posed any hindrance to Trump. The allegations against Kavanaugh didn't stop him from becoming a supreme court justice. The allegations against Louis CK didn't kill his career in comedy. And the
multiple women who have accused Biden of touching them inappropriately in the past haven't exactly derailed his career.
