Author Topic: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe  (Read 38738 times)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #450 on: April 25, 2020, 12:51:05 PM »
I'm not really sure why it's relevant to mention in an article about his self-quarantine for coronavirus, not to mention that without corroboration or proof mentioning it would just be sensationalized rumor-mongering.  Do you think they should include every rumor of scandal in every article on Biden in a pretense of "fairness"? 

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #451 on: April 25, 2020, 12:58:32 PM »
Imagine if Christine Ford’s mom had called a radio show 30 years ago and mentioned that something really bad happened to her daughter at a party. The media would treat it as conclusive proof and it would be a frontpage bombshell story.

Here's a 57sec video of that call happening. Except it's Tara Reade's mother. I'm sure this will be pursued aggressively by mainstream media /s

https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/status/1253819567320649729

Here is more information about the call Reid confirms it is her mothers voice,

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/24/a-1993-larry-king-live-transcript-adds-evidence-to-tara-reades-allegation-against-joe-biden/

The accussation is definitely more credible with that information.

Interestingly
Quote
The complaint was left with Biden’s office, and if it still exists, is with Biden’s papers at the University of Delaware. The school recently told reporter Rich McHugh that the papers are sealed until two years after Biden leaves public life.

That should be supeonable by a police investigation.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2020, 01:03:20 PM by LetterRip »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #452 on: April 25, 2020, 02:32:50 PM »
...No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

No. Colorism is not a thing. You hate a person because of how he/she looks, then it is racism. Do you have different categories for "kinky-hairism" or "slanty-eyeism"?

Quote
I'm quite aware that the Democrats were the party of the racists back then. Currently however the party of the racists is the Republicans instead.

No. Watch "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" and get the real history and documented facts. For just a quick synopsis: The Democrats always used Racism as a tool to get votes. After Eisenhower revived the old Lincoln Civil Rights bills that the Democrats never allowed to come to the floor, they were still full 0f KKK retreads and racists, but they were becoming aware that the majority of voters no longer followed their agenda. It still took until LBJ wanted to stick a finger in his own party's eye that the GOP were able to get the bills voted upon. It was Everett Dirksen, the GOP minority leader who championed their passage and against the Democrat resistance. Look at the vote totals. The Dems got desperate during the resurgence of the South, and the growing middle-class there that supported the GOP. They invented a "Nixon Southern Strategy" that never existed, to claim that all the Democrat racists and bigots had moved to the Republicans. Check the records. None of those racists switched parties. That started as Dems and remained Dems. LBJ actually admitted his agenda to create a nanny state to "own" the minority vote for the next hundred years.

Quote
...Every black, Latino or Arab person in the United States can be attacked in the exact same manner as he attacked the four congresswomen, telling them that they should go back to the countries they "came from", even though they're born in America.

Quite a doofus argument. If course anyone can be attacked. But Trump is a people's president and doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Those four idiots, otherwise known as AOC plus three, said unAmerican things that should have gotten them expelled from Congress, but the Dems looked away and did nothing. Any mention of what THEY SAID resulted in whoever reported it being called racist.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Instead, by your argument, we should perhaps say to Trump -- if you want to act like a racist and abolish immigration that made America great, you who were originally from Germany, then go back to Germany?

That is your argument based on a straw man argument that does not exist. Shame on you.

So, if it's supposedly not racist or otherwise bad, why shouldn't people not tell Trump to go back to Germany?

Mainly because he never did the bad things that Fake News said he did. Everyone, not just Trump, thinks that anyone immigrating to this country to escape the bad conditions in their home countries should not try to import that country's problems with them. Explain to us the logic of that.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #453 on: April 25, 2020, 02:44:13 PM »
I'm not really sure why it's relevant to mention in an article about his self-quarantine for coronavirus, not to mention that without corroboration or proof mentioning it would just be sensationalized rumor-mongering.  Do you think they should include every rumor of scandal in every article on Biden in a pretense of "fairness"?

I don’t disagree. The problem is if you visit many of the media sites (I just did for msnbc and nbcnews.com, abc news) you find either nothing on Biden, or puff pieces like the NyT one on how he's “struggling to find new ways to connect to his base”.

Literally nothing on an open police report alleging sexual assault. I suspect the only way these sites will give it anything close to the Kavanaug treatment is if he's actually charged with the crime. The army of social media metoo'ers who launched a full on blitz behind the Blasey accusation are just...gone.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #454 on: April 25, 2020, 02:56:46 PM »
Headline right now on CNN: Biden's accuser says mother called...

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #455 on: April 25, 2020, 03:14:57 PM »
...No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).

No. Colorism is not a thing. You hate a person because of how he/she looks, then it is racism. Do you have different categories for "kinky-hairism" or "slanty-eyeism"?

I'm not to blame for your ignorance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color

"Colorism" is the word used for people that e.g. discriminate between lighter-skinned black people and darker-skinned black people.

Previously you spoke about discriminating on the "color of a man's skin" alone being racism. Now you are yourself realizing that the way that racists handle race isn't about skin-color alone, but that they care about other superficial characteristics also like "slanty eyes", and have expanded your understanding to "appearance" in general.

Except that these racists don't actually care about those superficial characteristics by themselves EITHER! They instead use them as a PROXY for (duh!) ancestry. Do you think that racists care if a white person goes and gets tanned in the beach? No, they don't.

But they care very much about a person's ANCESTRY!!! People's appearance for racists is actually unimportant, their racism is judging people by their *genetical ancestry* (and they use the apperance just as a proxy).

Now, modern day racists like Trump have done away with this proxy, and are claiming themselves non-racist, because they supposedly don't discriminate against black people, they simply discriminate against... people of Sub-saharan ancestry? They don't discriminate against Latinos, they simply discriminate against... people of Mexican and Puerto Rican ancestry? They don't discriminate against... "slanty-eyed" people, they simply discriminate against people of Asian ancestry? They don't discriminate against brown people, they simply discriminate against people of Arab ancestry?

Well, geez, how nice that you people can avoid accusations of racism, by merely attacking directly the ancestry of the people you want to attack, namely the thing that racists actually wanted to attack anyway!

You think MLK would have been fine with discrimination based on whether one's ancestors came from Africa or not, as long as the discrimination wasn't specifically skin-color based?

Have you not heard of black people that could "pass" for white, but they would still be considered black by racists, because racists don't actually care about skin color, but about ancestry instead?

Quote
None of those racists switched parties. That started as Dems and remained Dems.

1956:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_United_States_presidential_election
Every state Republican, except a handful in the Deep South which were Democratic. (back when the Democrats were the party of the racists)

1964, eight years later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election
Every state Democratic, except a handful in the Deep South which were Republican. 

1968:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election
The same Deep South goes to George Wallace

I am guessing you don't think George Wallace to have been a racist either?

So, either the Deep South suddenly around 1960 became non-racist and the rest of the country became relatively less racist, or instead we had a political realignment of the parties around 1960. Evidence suggests the latter.

Quote
Quite a doofus argument. If course anyone can be attacked. But Trump is a people's president and doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Those four idiots, otherwise known as AOC plus three, said unAmerican things that should have gotten them expelled from Congress, but the Dems looked away and did nothing. Any mention of what THEY SAID resulted in whoever reported it being called racist.

I don't care about how it was reported, I judged Trump's statement by itself, as it stood.

He attacked them on the basis of their ancestry. That was racist: inherently so, unambiguously so, without further discussion on the subject needed or warranted.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #456 on: April 25, 2020, 04:07:50 PM »
..."Colorism" is the word used for people that e.g. discriminate between lighter-skinned black people and darker-skinned black people.

You mean Michelle Obama. She hated Vallery Jerrett because the Chicago Daley Machine held back dark-skinned Blacks, like her father, while promoting light-skinned Blacks, like Jerritt. Jerritt eventually hooked her up with Barrack and got them both into colleges where their transcripts and class rankings were ignored, so the bitterness because of her father was forgotten. But that is still not racism. MJJK's definition still stands.

Quote
Previously you spoke about discriminating on the "color of a man's skin" alone being racism. Now you are yourself realizing that the way that racists handle race isn't about skin-color alone, but that they care about other superficial characteristics also like "slanty eyes", and have expanded your understanding to "appearance" in general.

Except that these racists don't actually care about those superficial characteristics by themselves EITHER! They instead use them as a PROXY for (duh!) ancestry. Do you think that racists care if a white person goes and gets tanned in the beach? No, they don't.

But they care very much about a person's ANCESTRY!!! People's appearance for racists is actually unimportant, their racism is judging people by their *genetical ancestry* (and they use the appearance just as a proxy).

Not much of an expert. Racists hate people for no good reasons. You can invent as many as you like, but the only real reason is for that person to be held back so the racist can assume a higher status, comparatively.

Quote
Now, modern day racists like Trump have done away with this proxy, and are claiming themselves non-racist, because they supposedly don't discriminate against black people, they simply discriminate against... people of Sub-saharan ancestry? They don't discriminate against Latinos, they simply discriminate against... people of Mexican and Puerto Rican ancestry? They don't discriminate against... "slanty-eyed" people, they simply discriminate against people of Asian ancestry? They don't discriminate against brown people, they simply discriminate against people of Arab ancestry?

You only describe yourself, because Trump has never discriminated by color, race, creed, or ancestry. You can create a strawman to hate, but you can't make that strawman real. Trump denied immigration from countries that Obama had previously identified as being unable to properly vet. You just called Obama a racist. Ancestry has nothing to do with a country not keeping good enough records to tell us who is not a terrorist.

Quote
...either the Deep South suddenly around 1960 became non-racist and the rest of the country became relatively less racist, or instead we had a political realignment of the parties around 1960. Evidence suggests the latter..

No, it doesn't. This was the era when the middle class was growing in the south and agriculture was shrinking demographically. The South was turning Republican because of issues, Racism was always the Dems stock-in-trade. What you ignore is the possibility that anyone could be GOP and not be racist. All the facts say the opposite. As the Southern racists stayed stuck to the Dems, the majority were driven by issues and to the GOP.

Quote
Quote
Quite a doofus argument. If course anyone can be attacked. But Trump is a people's president and doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Those four idiots, otherwise known as AOC plus three, said unAmerican things that should have gotten them expelled from Congress, but the Dems looked away and did nothing. Any mention of what THEY SAID resulted in whoever reported it being called racist.

I don't care about how it was reported, I judged Trump's statement by itself, as it stood.

He attacked them on the basis of their ancestry. That was racist: inherently so, unambiguously so, without further discussion on the subject needed or warranted.

He pointed to their own words, and how they merited action to be taken against them. All you can see is racism. Isn't it funny how you describe something as "unambiguous" when it is provably the opposite? Why don't you speak to what they said and respond to that? Trump didn't say the words - they did.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #457 on: April 25, 2020, 04:22:04 PM »
I'm not really sure why it's relevant to mention in an article about his self-quarantine for coronavirus, not to mention that without corroboration or proof mentioning it would just be sensationalized rumor-mongering.  Do you think they should include every rumor of scandal in every article on Biden in a pretense of "fairness"?

I don’t disagree. The problem is if you visit many of the media sites (I just did for msnbc and nbcnews.com, abc news) you find either nothing on Biden, or puff pieces like the NyT one on how he's “struggling to find new ways to connect to his base”.

Literally nothing on an open police report alleging sexual assault. I suspect the only way these sites will give it anything close to the Kavanaug treatment is if he's actually charged with the crime. The army of social media metoo'ers who launched a full on blitz behind the Blasey accusation are just...gone.

You keep seeming to want every story to be about this complaint against him, when as you say they're about him finding ways to connect to his base or how he's managing his quarantine.  OTOH, if you google "Biden FOX News" almost every story is about Tara Reade's accusations.  Do you think that should dominate their coverage of him?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #458 on: April 25, 2020, 06:01:24 PM »
I'm not really sure why it's relevant to mention in an article about his self-quarantine for coronavirus, not to mention that without corroboration or proof mentioning it would just be sensationalized rumor-mongering.  Do you think they should include every rumor of scandal in every article on Biden in a pretense of "fairness"?

I don’t disagree. The problem is if you visit many of the media sites (I just did for msnbc and nbcnews.com, abc news) you find either nothing on Biden, or puff pieces like the NyT one on how he's “struggling to find new ways to connect to his base”.

Literally nothing on an open police report alleging sexual assault. I suspect the only way these sites will give it anything close to the Kavanaug treatment is if he's actually charged with the crime. The army of social media metoo'ers who launched a full on blitz behind the Blasey accusation are just...gone.

You keep seeming to want every story to be about this complaint against him, when as you say they're about him finding ways to connect to his base or how he's managing his quarantine.  OTOH, if you google "Biden FOX News" almost every story is about Tara Reade's accusations.  Do you think that should dominate their coverage of him?

Please don't infer motivation, I don't "want" anything regarding this topic. I'm making an observation about what appears to be blatant media partisanship. In my opinion, this is not a good thing.

Do you think a sexual assault charge against the leading candidate for president of the united states should get less, more, or equal coverage to a similar charge against a prospective supreme court judge?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #459 on: April 25, 2020, 06:31:07 PM »
Hmmm... how much coverage was about the senate hearings, vs just, stories about Kavanaugh that mentioned the assault?

I honestly don't remember - since Blasey Ford only came forward after Kavanaugh had been nominated, at which point there would have been a limited time to get Blasey Ford's statements into evidence... although at least some of the coverage was also about the fight to get her evidence admitted/heard.  There is no equivalent process underway right now for Biden.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #460 on: April 25, 2020, 06:49:00 PM »
Quote
Do you think a sexual assault charge against the leading candidate for president of the united states should get less, more, or equal coverage to a similar charge against a prospective supreme court judge?

Why do you think there should be an easy answer?  If you're looking for equivalence, you won't find it.  I will say that if Biden were sitting before a panel that was going to pass judgment on his fitness for office and was formally charged with evaluating all evidence both for and against, then this charge should be a factor in their consideration.  But that's not what's happening, so this will all be handled as a purely partisan political *censored*fest in the media.  You might as well ask why Trump wasn't forced to suffer through an interrogation like the one FOX is slavering to subject Biden with, but we already know the answer.  As with almost everything these days, the lines will be drawn brightly and 10's of millions of $$ will be thrown up for and against every slender bit of information.  We also know that the attackers will never relent, just as they've never gotten over Benghazi, Mailgate, the Uranium conspiracy and even Obama's birthplace.

One important question will be to ask when will it will have gone too far?  We'll probably know the answer well after it's crossed that line.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2020, 06:51:22 PM by Kasandra »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #461 on: April 25, 2020, 07:31:33 PM »
...If you're looking for equivalence, you won't find it.  I will say that if Biden were sitting before a panel that was going to pass judgment on his fitness for office and was formally charged with evaluating all evidence both for and against, then this charge should be a factor in their consideration.  But that's not what's happening, so this will all be handled as a purely partisan political *censored*fest in the media.  You might as well ask why Trump wasn't forced to suffer through an interrogation like the one FOX is slavering to subject Biden with, but we already know the answer.

Fox is the one network that at least tries to be fair and balanced. The charge that the office of President is not important enough for the Media to cover is ridiculous. Kavanaugh was not steamrollered because of any committee. He was steamrollered because the media covered the attacks against him 24/7 with no pause. Avenatti was on hundreds of times, and was heralded as a champion to the point where news celebrities named him a great presidential prospect, himself. Duh! He ended up in prison. The only reason Democrats get off with reprehensible conduct is because the MSM refuses to cover it. There was one important story that was so one-sided, that the media gave it a total of less than five minutes in a week - mere seconds at a time, and brushed off as a non-story when it was addressed at all. This has nothing to do with committee vs. elections.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #462 on: April 26, 2020, 07:17:40 AM »
...If you're looking for equivalence, you won't find it.  I will say that if Biden were sitting before a panel that was going to pass judgment on his fitness for office and was formally charged with evaluating all evidence both for and against, then this charge should be a factor in their consideration.  But that's not what's happening, so this will all be handled as a purely partisan political *censored*fest in the media.  You might as well ask why Trump wasn't forced to suffer through an interrogation like the one FOX is slavering to subject Biden with, but we already know the answer.

Fox is the one network that at least tries to be fair and balanced. The charge that the office of President is not important enough for the Media to cover is ridiculous. Kavanaugh was not steamrollered because of any committee. He was steamrollered because the media covered the attacks against him 24/7 with no pause. Avenatti was on hundreds of times, and was heralded as a champion to the point where news celebrities named him a great presidential prospect, himself. Duh! He ended up in prison. The only reason Democrats get off with reprehensible conduct is because the MSM refuses to cover it. There was one important story that was so one-sided, that the media gave it a total of less than five minutes in a week - mere seconds at a time, and brushed off as a non-story when it was addressed at all. This has nothing to do with committee vs. elections.

OOOOO, look what you stepped in!

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #463 on: April 27, 2020, 02:11:20 AM »
Hmm she seems to have a history of highly inconsistent memories on things both related to and unrelated to Biden; and also love/hate switching for powerful politicians.

https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #464 on: April 27, 2020, 02:39:40 AM »
Hmm she seems to have a history of highly inconsistent memories on things both related to and unrelated to Biden; and also love/hate switching for powerful politicians.

https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460

True or not, one of that report will likely make a difference.  For FOX conservatives it's a binary issue, either he did it or he didn't and most of them have already made their choice.  For everyone else, the only way to decide is for Biden to confess.  I'd be interested to see a poll of public opinions on this.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #465 on: April 27, 2020, 02:52:59 AM »
Hmm a major revision - her complaint to the congressional human resources was not about Joe Biden, but about feeling bullied by coworkers.

 
Quote
WaPo writes, "In The Post interview last year, she [Tara] laid more blame with Biden's staff for “bullying” her than with Biden. “This is what I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him who keep covering for him,” Reade said, adding later, “For instance, he should have known what was happening to me. . . . Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff.'”
    Reade was referring to alleged bullying, not alleged sexual assault. And Reade clearly gives the impression that Biden himself is not the person responsible for whatever wrongdoings she allegedly suffered. The WaPo continues, "Reade said that in 1993 she filed a complaint with a congressional human resources or personnel office but did not remember the exact name. Her complaint dealt only with the alleged harassment, not the assault, she said."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation

What she told her mom and her brother was not about sexual assault, but apparently the neck touching.  So her mom's call might actually relate to Reade feeling bullied by his staff.  So the phone call by her mother is much less condemning than I'd initially believed.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #466 on: April 27, 2020, 11:23:27 AM »
Hmm a major revision - her complaint to the congressional human resources was not about Joe Biden, but about feeling bullied by coworkers.

 
Quote
WaPo writes, "In The Post interview last year, she [Tara] laid more blame with Biden's staff for “bullying” her than with Biden. “This is what I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him who keep covering for him,” Reade said, adding later, “For instance, he should have known what was happening to me. . . . Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff.'”
    Reade was referring to alleged bullying, not alleged sexual assault. And Reade clearly gives the impression that Biden himself is not the person responsible for whatever wrongdoings she allegedly suffered. The WaPo continues, "Reade said that in 1993 she filed a complaint with a congressional human resources or personnel office but did not remember the exact name. Her complaint dealt only with the alleged harassment, not the assault, she said."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation

What she told her mom and her brother was not about sexual assault, but apparently the neck touching.  So her mom's call might actually relate to Reade feeling bullied by his staff.  So the phone call by her mother is much less condemning than I'd initially believed.

I wonder what she meant by " It’s the people around him who keep covering for him". Covering for what?

Also, it's fascinating to watch this play out this time around.

With Blasey-Ford you had a few folks here poking holes in her story, highlighting reasons why it probably wasn't a provable complaint, while others argued against those points vigorously and provided reasons why they were valid.

It's literally the same dialogue again, but with the roles inverted.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #467 on: April 27, 2020, 11:49:39 AM »
Overall I have no problem believing that Biden did this, but you can't really call the stories equivalent, because the circumstances are also different. That Judge K got wasted in high school and took things a little too far seems a little more likely and a little less sinister than Biden randomly groping someone who worked for him in a public corridor on Capitol Hill. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that the base story itself seems less plausible to me. On the other hand, Biden is well documented for touching women inappropriately, so that would work in the more plausible direction.

I personally never said that Ford's story was true, just that I didn't think she was making it up. I also believe that Reade probably isn't making this up in a vicious attempt to take Biden down. What is definitely different is that I'm not hearing anyone here or elsewhere calling this a political hit job.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #468 on: April 27, 2020, 12:07:12 PM »
Blasey Ford couldn't even prove she was ever in the same room or the same house as Kavanaugh. Reade at least has that much.  I'm not sure what to believe. If it did happen it seems like Biden thought it was consensual, kind of like in 13 Reasons Why. But women lie a lot and often aren't prosecuted or even held accountable when they do. The person who sent Brian Banks to prison for 5 years for a rape he didn't commit was never charged with a crime even when it was proven that she lied. There is no deterrent to making up stories and if someone is looking for attention it's a sure fire way to get it. On the other hand he is a creeper. No way to tell.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #469 on: April 27, 2020, 12:22:11 PM »
Blasey Ford couldn't even prove she was ever in the same room or the same house as Kavanaugh.
Really?  They were in the same social group, Blasey Ford had been going out with one of Kavanaugh's friends, Kavanaugh's calendar showed plans to meet up with the same people Blasey Ford remembered as being present at the get together in question... what evidence are you looking for?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #470 on: April 27, 2020, 12:25:51 PM »
Well as far as I remember nobody even testified that they ever saw the two of them together in the same room. Maybe that was just a talking point though.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #471 on: April 27, 2020, 12:51:42 PM »
No I think you're right. I don't recall anyone corroborating her story about the two of them being together, ever. That may be the biggest material difference in the two accusations, in one there's a clear connection and contact, even if completely legitimate/innocent. In the other, no contact of any kind was ever proven.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #472 on: April 27, 2020, 12:53:26 PM »
I wonder what she meant by " It’s the people around him who keep covering for him". Covering for what?

I think that was in the context of the original allegation of him touching her neck.  Unfortunately the WashingtonPost search interface is crap and can't find the article from last year where it was written, only quotes of that line quoting the older post article.

Quote
With Blasey-Ford you had a few folks here poking holes in her story, highlighting reasons why it probably wasn't a provable complaint, while others argued against those points vigorously and provided reasons why they were valid.

Drunk teen attempts rape at party - not particularly beyond the pale.  Drunk guy doesn't remember being drunk or engaging in heinous activity - not really surprising.  Hard core drinker lies repeatedly about drinking - not particularly unexpected.  Person who claims to be the victim of said attempted rape remembers lots of details that noone else does - not surprising at all.

So highly plausible but tough to verify - what was verifiable was consistent. She was a highly credible witness.

Sober Senator sexually assaults staffer in corridors without any history that would imply he is likely or capable of such - quite surprising.  Staffer is an ardent supporter of his repeatedly and publically after the event and only changes dramatically after she has a substantial change in politics - somewhat surprising.  Staffer has drastically inconsistent stories about all aspects of the claims (what happened to her, why she left, why she came forward) - pretty surprising.  Things that are easily verifiable aren't able to be verified (filing a complaint with HR, complaining to staffers) - pretty surprising.  The only collaboration of her claim is for a drastically less serious claim.  She has an either highly faulty memory or has lied repeatedly about even fairly minor things (ie her praise of Putin).

Somewhat plausible - but all of the verification has failed except for the fairly minor complaint, and she has dubious credibility because she has repeatedly changed her story on even strange things like her praise for Putin.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #473 on: April 27, 2020, 12:58:55 PM »
No I think you're right. I don't recall anyone corroborating her story about the two of them being together, ever. That may be the biggest material difference in the two accusations, in one there's a clear connection and contact, even if completely legitimate/innocent. In the other, no contact of any kind was ever proven.

The odds of her memory of who was at the party aligning with who was on his social calendar for meeting for a party - if in fact they weren't at the same party are absolutely astronomical.  You'd probably have better odds of winning the lottery multiple times.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #474 on: April 27, 2020, 01:56:29 PM »
No I think you're right. I don't recall anyone corroborating her story about the two of them being together, ever. That may be the biggest material difference in the two accusations, in one there's a clear connection and contact, even if completely legitimate/innocent. In the other, no contact of any kind was ever proven.

The odds of her memory of who was at the party aligning with who was on his social calendar for meeting for a party - if in fact they weren't at the same party are absolutely astronomical.  You'd probably have better odds of winning the lottery multiple times.

Not as hard as you'd think if she was at "one remove" from his social circle and interacted with most of the same people. If you know who in your circle are also in his(or her) circle, you have a decent chance of creating a list of people who could end up in the same place at the same time even absent actual knowledge of any such event actually happening.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #475 on: April 27, 2020, 03:22:50 PM »
I'm not terribly interested in actually debating either case but rather the overall treatment each has received. Here's an early timeline comparison of the two accusations:


Days 1-3 are revealing:

Kavanaugh accusation coverage/reactions (day 1-3):

- The New York Times publishes a story minutes after the original Wapo article surfaces, stating that because of this accusation, his nomination was now "in turmoil" (day 1 of accusation)
- CNN has four separate reports, compares it to Anita Hill (day 1).
- Chuck Schumer immediately calls for an FBI background investigation into the claims (day 2)
- Kavanaugh's nomination officially "descends into chaos," CNN reports. (day 2)
- Huffpo runs a front page story about the accusations, quoting Biden as saying, "Women’s Claims Of Sexual Assault Should Be Presumed To Be True." (day 2)
- The New York Times publishes an op-ed from Anita Hill, who argues: "With the current heightened awareness of sexual violence comes heightened accountability for our representatives." (day 3)

Biden accusations coverage/reactions (day 1-3):
- CNN reports, "Why is Bernie Sanders still running for president?" The Reade claim is not mentioned on the network, either on-air or online. (day 1)
- The NYT publishes a story explaining that Biden was growing "impatient" with the idea of more debates with Bernie Sanders. The Reade claim is not mentioned anywhere in the paper. (day 1)
- Jimmy Kimmel interviews Biden, and the two discuss "Where's Waldo?" Kimmel does not ask Biden about Reade's accusation. (day 2)
- Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor, touts a "Green New Deal." He accuses Republicans of "refusing to admit" that "climate change is real." (day 2)
- CNN teases an upcoming CNN town hall with Joe Biden. The Reade accusations are not discussed on-air in the network's preview coverage. (day 2)
- CNN's Anderson Cooper interviews Biden - does not ask Biden about Reade's claims in a lengthy virtual town hall. (day 3)
- In its writeup of the event, CNN assures readers, "Joe Biden: He's just like the rest of us."
- The Huffington Post covers Reade's claim. The outlet notes, "Last April, Reade was one of eight women to accuse the former vice president of inappropriate touching." The articles goes on to observe, however, that when she first accused Biden of inappropriate touching, Reade was "accused of being politically motivated and called a Russian operative... (day 3)

That's the first 72 hours. The differences are even starker in the days and weeks that follow.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/media-that-rushed-to-report-kavanaugh-allegations-are-now-less-interested-in-biden-sexual-assault-claim
« Last Edit: April 27, 2020, 03:26:26 PM by ScottF »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #476 on: April 27, 2020, 03:36:53 PM »
So highly plausible but tough to verify - what was verifiable was consistent. She was a highly credible witness.

Sober Senator sexually assaults staffer in corridors without any history that would imply he is likely or capable of such - quite surprising.

There may be an issue here with the term "sexually assults". In the past we thought of this as "man jumps on woman out of the bushes." Socially (and legally) speaking that is no longer the case, and afaik includes any kind of non-consensual touching. So senator jumps out of the bushes raping his staff? Unlikely. Senator touches them in ways they don't like? In Biden's case, extremely likely. Or have you not seen the umpteen videos of him practically groping young girls in public events? It creeps the **** out of me whenever I see it.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #477 on: April 27, 2020, 03:43:57 PM »
The dissimilarities are far more relevant.  Except, of course, to FOX, which is the source of this trenchant analysis.  Compare the cable coverage of Blaisey Ford's testimony during the Kavanaugh hearing.  You'll notice that FOX offers the least amount of coverage and the least amount of direct quotes from Ford or coverage during her testimony.  Then look how often they cite Kavanaugh's statements during his testimony.  See a pattern here?

Word to the wise: Never use FOX as a resource when trying to get a political story reported on a level playing field.   You may feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, but in this case notice how thorough their coverage is of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #478 on: April 27, 2020, 03:44:15 PM »
<shrug> Media is going to media.  There are currently 6 articles on Fox referencing the Reade allegations, there were at least as many yesterday.

The bigger issue is how the parties respond/responded to the stories, and their equivalence - I haven't followed the recent allegations - is it of sexual harassment, bullying, sexual assault..?  Is that the same as the sexual assault allegations made against Kavanaugh

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #479 on: April 27, 2020, 03:45:20 PM »
So highly plausible but tough to verify - what was verifiable was consistent. She was a highly credible witness.

Sober Senator sexually assaults staffer in corridors without any history that would imply he is likely or capable of such - quite surprising.

There may be an issue here with the term "sexually assults". In the past we thought of this as "man jumps on woman out of the bushes." Socially (and legally) speaking that is no longer the case, and afaik includes any kind of non-consensual touching. So senator jumps out of the bushes raping his staff? Unlikely. Senator touches them in ways they don't like? In Biden's case, extremely likely. Or have you not seen the umpteen videos of him practically groping young girls in public events? It creeps the **** out of me whenever I see it.

Biden has definitely touched women without consent. However the other accusations weren't nearly as serious as shoving someone against a wall and penetrating her with his hand. The current accusation is vastly more serious and comes after he has been in the public the entire time. So the timing of this accusation is more suspect than Kavanaugh but remains plausible.

This is one of the many reasons I again think the democrats again picked the one candidate, this time out of 20, that is/was easiest for Trump to win against in the fall.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #480 on: April 27, 2020, 03:45:33 PM »
Quote
In Biden's case, extremely likely. Or have you not seen the umpteen videos of him practically groping young girls in public events? It creeps the **** out of me whenever I see it.

How do you feel about the many reports of Trump's sexual actions against different women? Does it creep the *censored* out of you?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #481 on: April 27, 2020, 03:53:22 PM »
<shrug> Media is going to media.  There are currently 6 articles on Fox referencing the Reade allegations, there were at least as many yesterday.

To be fair the only articles I've seen about Biden since Bernie dropped are either about the Reade allegations or about how he's struggling to be relevant at all. No positive stories, but I don't follow CNN or MSNBC so maybe I'm missing out on those. Biden has been in a virtual news black hole since covid took over in mid march. Not a great place to be for a presidential candidate.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #482 on: April 27, 2020, 04:12:21 PM »
The dissimilarities are far more relevant.  Except, of course, to FOX, which is the source of this trenchant analysis.  Compare the cable coverage of Blaisey Ford's testimony during the Kavanaugh hearing.  You'll notice that FOX offers the least amount of coverage and the least amount of direct quotes from Ford or coverage during her testimony.  Then look how often they cite Kavanaugh's statements during his testimony.  See a pattern here?

Word to the wise: Never use FOX as a resource when trying to get a political story reported on a level playing field.   You may feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, but in this case notice how thorough their coverage is of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.

Of course Fox inserts their own bias, all media does. You're certainly under no obligation to address any of the timeline points or assess the relative (in)equality of the coverage, but "never trust [insert_source_here]" or making this about a single media outlet instead of analyzing the collective feels lazy. It's devoid of substance.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #483 on: April 27, 2020, 04:21:27 PM »
Biden has definitely touched women without consent. However the other accusations weren't nearly as serious as shoving someone against a wall and penetrating her with his hand. The current accusation is vastly more serious and comes after he has been in the public the entire time. So the timing of this accusation is more suspect than Kavanaugh but remains plausible.

At a certain point I'm willing to go with my gut instinct, so long as it aligns at least somewhat with real evidence. If I see a guy touching people inappropriately and repeatedly in public and on camera, then I think it's a fair assumption that what they will do off-camera is worse. Sure, it's possible that what we see him do is all he does anywhere, but my gut tells me that's not a good bet. Based on what I have seen, I expect the worst as a reasonable extrapolation of the public/private transformation of behavior.

To answer Kasandra, Trump bugs a lot of people on a gut level too, and assuming you're going to allow that gut feeling into evidence my only advice would be to temper that with evidence as well. What has he actually done that you've observed, which validates the fears of what he's done that goes unseen? In Trump's case what I've seen is that he talks filthy, which translates to me as probably talking even worse in private. How that translates into him being a rapist I don't know. I don't really doubt he's slept with various people, maybe hookers, who knows what. I doubt he leads a clean life. But is he a rapist? I'll give that about the same odds as any famous person, in terms of the likelihood of him abusing that power to get what he wants from people. You've seen what's going on in Hollywood; did you suspect many of the people now outed? They're not like Trump, are they, but look what they did. So don't go on gut alone.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #484 on: April 27, 2020, 04:32:59 PM »
Props to Kamala Harris for consistency. When asked about Tara Reade and the other women: “I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it”

Non-trivial, given she's a potential VP pick.

video
https://twitter.com/KingsleyCortes/status/1254863230054199296

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #485 on: April 27, 2020, 04:41:15 PM »
In Trump's case what I've seen is that he talks filthy, which translates to me as probably talking even worse in private. How that translates into him being a rapist I don't know. I don't really doubt he's slept with various people, maybe hookers, who knows what. I doubt he leads a clean life. But is he a rapist? I'll give that about the same odds as any famous person, in terms of the likelihood of him abusing that power to get what he wants from people.

I'd give Trump higher odds than "the same odds as any famous person", given that his former wife had also accused him of rape (before withdrawing the accusation), and several other women have also accused him from behaviour that ranges from sexual assault to outright rape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations)
« Last Edit: April 27, 2020, 04:45:17 PM by Aris Katsaris »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #486 on: April 27, 2020, 04:45:08 PM »
Biden has definitely touched women without consent. However the other accusations weren't nearly as serious as shoving someone against a wall and penetrating her with his hand. The current accusation is vastly more serious and comes after he has been in the public the entire time. So the timing of this accusation is more suspect than Kavanaugh but remains plausible.

At a certain point I'm willing to go with my gut instinct, so long as it aligns at least somewhat with real evidence. If I see a guy touching people inappropriately and repeatedly in public and on camera, then I think it's a fair assumption that what they will do off-camera is worse. Sure, it's possible that what we see him do is all he does anywhere, but my gut tells me that's not a good bet. Based on what I have seen, I expect the worst as a reasonable extrapolation of the public/private transformation of behavior.

To answer Kasandra, Trump bugs a lot of people on a gut level too, and assuming you're going to allow that gut feeling into evidence my only advice would be to temper that with evidence as well. What has he actually done that you've observed, which validates the fears of what he's done that goes unseen? In Trump's case what I've seen is that he talks filthy, which translates to me as probably talking even worse in private. How that translates into him being a rapist I don't know. I don't really doubt he's slept with various people, maybe hookers, who knows what. I doubt he leads a clean life. But is he a rapist? I'll give that about the same odds as any famous person, in terms of the likelihood of him abusing that power to get what he wants from people. You've seen what's going on in Hollywood; did you suspect many of the people now outed? They're not like Trump, are they, but look what they did. So don't go on gut alone.

There's an unmistakeable whiff of "fair and balanced" here.  Since Trump is widely KNOWN to have done all sorts of reprehensible things with sexual intent and is widely KNOWN to insult women in Congress or government who don't say nice things about him, it's ONLY FAIR to raise claims against his opponent in the next election to the same level or even exceed it.  Trump now gets a pass on all of his past actions so we can put Biden on media trial and denounce him for these still unsubstantiated claims.  I can pretty much guarantee that Reade will be exposed as a flake, but FOX will never report it because it does them no good.

NONE of you have any idea if what Reade says today (different from what she has said on many occasions in the past) is true, but, hey, it's only fair to hold Biden liable for those claims. 

That's what makes Ornery special for me, the disguised antipathy toward Democrats and liberals hidden under the cover of civil conversation and disparagement.  After all, being a Democrat already makes him suspect as a moral person.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #487 on: April 27, 2020, 04:53:16 PM »
That's what makes Ornery special for me, the disguised antipathy toward Democrats and liberals hidden under the cover of civil conversation and disparagement.  After all, being a Democrat already makes him suspect as a moral person.

I think the coverage and treatment against Kavanaugh were incredibly partisan and over the top.

I think the treatment Biden has been getting so far is actually much more reasonable and appropriate, given the reality of hard to corroborate charges.

Do those opinions seem disingenuous or veiled to you?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #488 on: April 27, 2020, 05:03:12 PM »
I'd give Trump higher odds than "the same odds as any famous person", given that his former wife had also accused him of rape (before withdrawing the accusation), and several other women have also accused him from behaviour that ranges from sexual assault to outright rape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations)

She didn't withdraw tha accussation - she renamed it.  She said she accurately described the events in her deposition but no longer characterizes it as rape.  If her description was accurate and then lawfully it was rape - whether she 'no longer considers it' to be so or not.  She almost certainly has a gag order about it as part of their divorce settlement.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #489 on: April 27, 2020, 06:04:31 PM »
That's what makes Ornery special for me, the disguised antipathy toward Democrats and liberals hidden under the cover of civil conversation and disparagement.  After all, being a Democrat already makes him suspect as a moral person.

I think the coverage and treatment against Kavanaugh were incredibly partisan and over the top.

I think the treatment Biden has been getting so far is actually much more reasonable and appropriate, given the reality of hard to corroborate charges.

Do those opinions seem disingenuous or veiled to you?

Opinions, speculation, skepticism and criticism that the media aren't challenging Biden to come clean and either confess or deny the accusations (which, obtw, he has already done).  There is no evidence to hold Biden accountable to, no testimony to prove or disprove, no formal investigation that has been launched that would lead to formal charges, only a lot of people (including here) who assume from other unproven claims against him that this one is also likely true. 

So, I guess holding him to whatever standard you're doing could be seen as disingenuous and only gauzily veiled.  Why don't we finish holding Trump accountable for his very well known charges before we move onto this one, eh?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #490 on: April 27, 2020, 06:09:49 PM »
Why don't we finish holding Trump accountable for his very well known charges before we move onto this one, eh?
I'm pretty sure the answer to that is that the voters already litigated that during the 2016 election, so it must be irrelevant...

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #491 on: April 27, 2020, 06:51:01 PM »
...Never use FOX as a resource when trying to get a political story reported on a level playing field.   You may feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, but in this case notice how thorough their coverage is of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.

What did you just say? Fox coverage is far more fair and thorough than the other MSM, so why say never use them as a resource?  ...Unless you don't want the facts.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #492 on: April 27, 2020, 09:16:56 PM »
...Never use FOX as a resource when trying to get a political story reported on a level playing field.   You may feel the same way about MSNBC and CNN, but in this case notice how thorough their coverage is of both Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony.

What did you just say? Fox coverage is far more fair and thorough than the other MSM, so why say never use them as a resource?  ...Unless you don't want the facts.

Such an utterly sad and predictable response.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #493 on: April 28, 2020, 03:35:57 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/tara-reade-neighbor-joe-biden-sexual-assault-201409554.html

What was interesting to me was that the witness to hearing her story at the time both believes her friend and yet still supports Joe Biden. I reckon there will be a lot more of that than Democrats want to admit. People who believe he is guilty and will support and vote for him anyway. That's gotta hurt.

"LaCasse told Insider she’s a Democrat and plans to vote for Biden despite Reade’s allegation. Still, she felt compelled to stick up for her friend, who has faced a wave of criticism and death threats since accusing Biden of assault.

“I have to support her just because that’s what happened,” LaCasse said. “We need to stand up and tell the truth.”

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #494 on: April 28, 2020, 10:40:36 AM »
Cherrypoptart:
Quote
People who believe he is guilty and will support and vote for him anyway. That's gotta hurt.

Why?  That is what Trump's followers have been saying for years - 'yes we know he is a flaming pile of garbage. But he promised to do the things we want while in office, so I will hold my nose and vote for him'

Meanwhile, I am STILL getting flack for voting 3rd party rather than voting for Clinton to keep Trump out.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #495 on: April 28, 2020, 11:00:14 AM »
Quote
Meanwhile, I am STILL getting flack for voting 3rd party rather than voting for Clinton to keep Trump out.

That's why we should use ranked choice voting (RCV) for large-scale elections, especially national ones.  You could have voted your conscience for first choice and an "okay, sure" choice as your backup.  If RCV had been used in Florida in 2000, Gore would have been elected easily.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #496 on: April 28, 2020, 11:00:54 AM »
Times Up (the advocacy organization that has raised $24M and helped support and fund Blasey-Ford) said it would not do the same for Reade because "Biden was a candidate for federal office, and assisting a case against him, Time’s Up said, could jeopardize the organization’s nonprofit status."

Some of the loudest #metoo, #timesup voices are now saying while they believe Reade (see Melissa Milano) they also still support Biden and feel he deserves due process.

Normally I would say that the massive cognitive dissonance inherent in those two positions would, rightly, twist you into a pretzel.  I simply don't believe the people claiming to hold those opinions, so that dissonance most likely isn't' actually occurring.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #497 on: April 28, 2020, 11:03:46 AM »
I think what you will start seeing is that very rationalization - "yes, I believe he probably did do something inappropriate" or even "yes, I believe what he did was sexual assault" but then "seeing as how Trump has been credibly accused of sexual assault by more than a dozen women, bribed women to keep silent about affairs and lied about it to the electorate, attempted to bribe a foreign country to assist him in getting re-elected... I'll hold my nose and vote for Biden"

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #498 on: April 28, 2020, 11:28:08 AM »
DonaldD I think you're right, but what a sad statement. I really do blame the democratic party for leaving their base with such horrible options.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #499 on: April 28, 2020, 11:37:37 AM »
DonaldD I think you're right, but what a sad statement. I really do blame the democratic party for leaving their base with such horrible options.

The democratic party had 20 candidates. The "party" didn't leave us with the horrible options that's the voters combined with the voting system. What's sad is the primary system basically whittled it down to Sanders vs Biden after 4 states. The primary system needs a huge revamp, its a difficult problem to solve because of the expense of national campaigns but I think we can do better. Ranked choice or approval voting would be hugely beneficial in crowded primaries. Primaries I think benefit more from approval voting but final elections with fewer candidates probably do better with ranked choice.