We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

[ScottF]

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.

I suppose I'm viewing primary and caucus voters as "the party", but ok.

[yossarian22c]

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.

I suppose I'm viewing primary and caucus voters as "the party", but ok.

Okay, I accept that use of "the party" then. Often "the party" is used to refer to the DNC or insiders and while they largely did support Biden I don't blame them for who the voters actually selected.

[Kasandra]

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.

IMO, RCV is better than approval voting (AV) for the simple reason that with AV the voter doesn't have the same sense of voting their "preference".  If someone selected Nader and Gore, it implies that either is acceptable to them, when in fact anyone who pulled the lever for Nader preferred him over all other candidates.

[yossarian22c]

IMO, RCV is better than approval voting (AV) for the simple reason that with AV the voter doesn't have the same sense of voting their "preference".  If someone selected Nader and Gore, it implies that either is acceptable to them, when in fact anyone who pulled the lever for Nader preferred him over all other candidates.

I agree in a field of 3 or 4 RCV is better than AV. In the field of 20 candidates the democrats initially had I think AV is just more user friendly. Also AV is better suited to primaries where the differences between candidates is smaller. I like RCV for a general so people can go cast a real protest vote but then still have their lessor of two evil votes count.

[Kasandra]

IMO, RCV is better than approval voting (AV) for the simple reason that with AV the voter doesn't have the same sense of voting their "preference".  If someone selected Nader and Gore, it implies that either is acceptable to them, when in fact anyone who pulled the lever for Nader preferred him over all other candidates.

I agree in a field of 3 or 4 RCV is better than AV. In the field of 20 candidates the democrats initially had I think AV is just more user friendly. Also AV is better suited to primaries where the differences between candidates is smaller. I like RCV for a general so people can go cast a real protest vote but then still have their lessor of two evil votes count.

Good points.

[Fenring]

Okay, I accept that use of "the party" then. Often "the party" is used to refer to the DNC or insiders and while they largely did support Biden I don't blame them for who the voters actually selected.

Really? That's an interesting compartmentalization. How can you 'not blame' a group for creating intensive media coverage and buzz in support of one candidate? I assume you believe there's a direct link between positive coverage and platforming and popular awareness + support for a candidate, therefore I'm not sure where "I don't blame them" comes into it. I mean, assuming you don't like the final choice, hence the word 'blame', why should you not blame them? Obviously you can't exclusively blame them, but why not blame them?

[TheDeamon]

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.

If you want to be "fair and balanced" on that front, you also need to mention all the "mean and nasty things" Trump will also say to men who disagree with him.

Schumer, Romney, and even Ted Cruz have all been on the receiving end of that. Trump seems to be an equal opportunity disparager, he does it frequently, and he does it often, and the higher your profile is when you draw his fire, the more likely he is to keep shooting.

And AOC in particular tends to revel in drawing Trump's ire, so it's hardly shocking she keeps getting targeted by Trump. It isn't because she's a woman, it's that she's deliberately seeking his (negative) attention because it helps keep her name in lights(although she'll very happily play the gender card, and Trump will level gender and ethnic specific insults which help with the claim)... And her feeding the fire in turn helps keep Trump's name in lights, so they mutually feed each other.

Comparable story with Trump on a number of other occasions. Women "seem to happen more often" because (feminist) women are in a unique position to be able to benefit from it much more so than men are. It helps "build their credibility" the more they can get Trump to attack them.

[Kasandra]

Basically, you're saying it's impossible to tell who is or isn't being honest, since everybody has a personal interest in everything that involves them.  I guess it's even possible that Tara Reade cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!

On another front, Trump is such a mental midget that every single one of his advisors is feeding him the crap that he regurgitates to the public.  I suppose it's possible -- more than likely, actually -- that they are indeed coordinating with FOX to drive up the ratings of that network.  Their bank balances will prove this is true. They had better hope he doesn't order pizza from one of Hillary's pizza joints and die before they're done using him.

[wmLambert]

Basically, you're saying it's impossible to tell who is or isn't being honest, since everybody has a personal interest in everything that involves them.  I guess it's even possible that Tara Reade cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!

On another front, Trump is such a mental midget that every single one of his advisors is feeding him the crap that he regurgitates to the public.  I suppose it's possible -- more than likely, actually -- that they are indeed coordinating with FOX to drive up the ratings of that network.  Their bank balances will prove this is true. They had better hope he doesn't order pizza from one of Hillary's pizza joints and die before they're done using him.

Fox may be Fair and Balanced, but you are certainly not. Tara Reade addressed the charges against Biden contemporaneously to many people who have authenticated what she said, unlike Blasey-Ford. Her mother appeared on Larry King complaining about how her daughter received no help from the then majority Democrats to protect her. Instead she was shunted into a windowless cubicle to get her away from the sex fiend Biden. The Reade charges were first publicly presented over a month ago. In that time, with Biden getting interviewed hundreds of times by the MSM, he was NEVER asked one question about it. Not one. No denial. Fair and balanced is not a slogan, it is a business plan that enables Fox to trounce all the other networks in ratings consistently. Not one time!

Fox has also shown the video of Biden, during the witch hunt against Kavanaugh saying that abused women should not just be heard, they should be believed.

It's funny, the above claim that Reade may have "cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!" is as lame as the MSM never asking a Presidential presumed nominee anything about it.

Fox has covered the Reade complaint and the facts have been in the form of documented testimony and a video clip of Larry King (CNN) taking the call. That was not a transcript of the call paraphrased by a non-whistle blower and Schiff - it was the actual call. You'd think CNN would have the ability to find that clip, also. Not one time!

[wmLambert]

...AOC in particular tends to revel in drawing Trump's ire, so it's hardly shocking she keeps getting targeted by Trump. It isn't because she's a woman, it's that she's deliberately seeking his (negative) attention because it helps keep her name in lights(although she'll very happily play the gender card, and Trump will level gender and ethnic specific insults which help with the claim)... And her feeding the fire in turn helps keep Trump's name in lights, so they mutually feed each other.

You're correct that AOC gets in the limelight by presenting the words of her recruiters, the Justice Democrats, who admitted they did recruit her in a "cattle call" her brother sent in her name for. There are video clips of her sponsors explaining what she would say, so take the complicit Snopes response with an appropriate grain of salt. AOC did admit how she was recruited, and the Justice Democrats have bragged about their role. The claim that she is her own woman is okay, but she is only there because of the media limelight her sponsors provided her. What should also be noted, is that when AOC or her tag-alongs attack Trump, their words hit a suit of armor and bounce back at them. The MSM never reports their own attack, just the bounce back. We laugh at her saying beef must be outlawed because the Green New Deal wants to reduce cow farts, but even the laughter keeps her name in the news.

[ScottF]

Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

[Kasandra]

Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

[Kasandra]

Basically, you're saying it's impossible to tell who is or isn't being honest, since everybody has a personal interest in everything that involves them.  I guess it's even possible that Tara Reade cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!

On another front, Trump is such a mental midget that every single one of his advisors is feeding him the crap that he regurgitates to the public.  I suppose it's possible -- more than likely, actually -- that they are indeed coordinating with FOX to drive up the ratings of that network.  Their bank balances will prove this is true. They had better hope he doesn't order pizza from one of Hillary's pizza joints and die before they're done using him.

Fox may be Fair and Balanced, but you are certainly not.

That disqualifies your ability to make judgments, but that's nothing new.

Tara Reade addressed the charges against Biden contemporaneously to many people who have authenticated what she said, unlike Blasey-Ford.

Ford passed a lie detector test and has contemporaneous therapist notes.  Does Reade?

Her mother appeared on Larry King complaining about how her daughter received no help from the then majority Democrats to protect her.

From what?  She didn't say what the problem she was calling about was.  How do you know what it was?  Reade changed her story several times over the years, so which one did she tell her mother?

Instead she was shunted into a windowless cubicle to get her away from the sex fiend Biden.

Quite the informed statement.  In what way was Biden a sex fiend? 

The Reade charges were first publicly presented over a month ago. In that time, with Biden getting interviewed hundreds of times by the MSM, he was NEVER asked one question about it. Not one. No denial. Fair and balanced is not a slogan, it is a business plan that enables Fox to trounce all the other networks in ratings consistently. Not one time!

Don't worry, FOX is making up for it by talking about nothing else.  That's the same network that did everything possible to ignore Ford's charges against Kavanaugh, because as you say, Fair and Balanced.

Fox has also shown the video of Biden, during the witch hunt against Kavanaugh saying that abused women should not just be heard, they should be believed.

A reasonable statement.  Has Trump ever said that?

It's funny, the above claim that Reade may have "cornered Biden and exposed herself in the hopes he would molest her so she could use the incident at some convenient point in the future.  Hell, it's not just possible, that's the most likely explanation I can think of!!!!!!" is as lame as the MSM never asking a Presidential presumed nominee anything about it.

It's not funny.  Why don't you think it's possible?  Do you have any evidence stronger than your conviction that Biden sexually assaulted her?

Fox has covered the Reade complaint and the facts have been in the form of documented testimony and a video clip of Larry King (CNN) taking the call. That was not a transcript of the call paraphrased by a non-whistle blower and Schiff - it was the actual call. You'd think CNN would have the ability to find that clip, also. Not one time!

CNN doesn't have lots of clips.  In fact, transcripts.cnn.com doesn't go back farther than 2000.  Why would they have that one?

[ScottF]

Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

I can't read her mind but it's possible that, like Blasey-Ford, she was emotionally scarred and conflicted. It's simply coincidence that they both decided to come forward during a compelling event.

[TheDrake]

Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

I can't read her mind but it's possible that, like Blasey-Ford, she was emotionally scarred and conflicted. It's simply coincidence that they both decided to come forward during a compelling event.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Women can come forward when they perceive that their abusers are about to enter a unique position of trust, because they are seeing the abuser regularly in the news, and because people they may have confided in encourage them to finally take a stand. Or they could seek publicity, or they could be paid to fabricate a story. But the first choice is also an option.

eight more reasons involving non-famous abusers why women don't come forward with accusations

[ScottF]

Kassandra was the one questioning the timing of the accusation, but good to know.

[Kasandra]

Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

I can't read her mind but it's possible that, like Blasey-Ford, she was emotionally scarred and conflicted. It's simply coincidence that they both decided to come forward during a compelling event.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Women can come forward when they perceive that their abusers are about to enter a unique position of trust, because they are seeing the abuser regularly in the news, and because people they may have confided in encourage them to finally take a stand. Or they could seek publicity, or they could be paid to fabricate a story. But the first choice is also an option.

eight more reasons involving non-famous abusers why women don't come forward with accusations

You are giving possible reasons, but we don't know the real one yet, do we?  In the meantime, there could be many more possible reasons that could be spun out.  Just to be clear, I don't disbelieve her, but without further evidence I don't believe her, either.  I won't be giving plausible hypothetical reasons in the meantime.  I might have some more implausible explanations, though, since some people have already gone their (Biden's a "sex fiend", e.g.).

[TheDrake]

Succinct.

https://imgur.com/a/LvOf873

Not there yet.  She's trying, though.  I wonder why she didn't come forward during the intervening years when he ran for President and served as VP.  What's different now?

I can't read her mind but it's possible that, like Blasey-Ford, she was emotionally scarred and conflicted. It's simply coincidence that they both decided to come forward during a compelling event.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Women can come forward when they perceive that their abusers are about to enter a unique position of trust, because they are seeing the abuser regularly in the news, and because people they may have confided in encourage them to finally take a stand. Or they could seek publicity, or they could be paid to fabricate a story. But the first choice is also an option.

eight more reasons involving non-famous abusers why women don't come forward with accusations

You are giving possible reasons, but we don't know the real one yet, do we?  In the meantime, there could be many more possible reasons that could be spun out.  Just to be clear, I don't disbelieve her, but without further evidence I don't believe her, either.  I won't be giving plausible hypothetical reasons in the meantime.  I might have some more implausible explanations, though, since some people have already gone their (Biden's a "sex fiend", e.g.).

"Wondering" about motives invites speculation. That's what wondering is for.

[ScottF]

Apparently journalists and reporters are not wondering that much about the accusations. None of them have asked Biden a single question about it. They seem strangely uninterested. #believesomewomen #me-maybe

[LetterRip]

This on the record confirmation from a neighbor of hers, seems to strengthen the allegation,

LaCasse said she remembers stepping outside her home in California to sneak a cigarette away from her kids sometime in 1995 or early 1996, when she was joined by Reade on her front stoop. They were emotional, discussing custody issues and violence, and she recalls Reade then mentioning Joe Biden, a man she was not particularly familiar with at the time.

"I do remember her telling me that Joe Biden had put her up against a wall and had put his hands up her skirt and had put his fingers inside her," LaCasse said.

Reade, as detailed in a previous NPR report, has accused Biden of pinning her up against a wall in the hallway of a Capitol Hill building and penetrating her vagina with his fingers in the spring of 1993.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847840765/new-information-emerges-around-biden-sexual-assault-allegation

[yossarian22c]

Apparently journalists and reporters are not wondering that much about the accusations. None of them have asked Biden a single question about it. They seem strangely uninterested. #believesomewomen #me-maybe

Or see LR's post above that they are digging into it to see what they can find. I hope this blows Biden's candidacy out of the water sooner rather than later. I don't think the old man had it in him to pull it out without a second scandal to add to Ukraine. If he has many of the same flaws as Trump he won't easily be able to rally independent and moderate turn out and he clearly doesn't excite the left of the party. Whatever else Trump has, he has a die hard 60-70% of the republican party who are going to turn out and vote for him no matter what.

[ScottF]

It looks like they're finally starting to dig in a bit. At some point, some brave soul will actually ask him about it.

[yossarian22c]

It looks like they're finally starting to dig in a bit. At some point, some brave soul will actually ask him about it.

I still haven't heard much from or about Biden in the last month. There were a couple stories about the tech failings of his online town halls early on, notes about Biden when Bernie dropped, a story or two about how he's struggling to stay relevant while isolated, and the Reade story. Has he been doing interviews in the last couple weeks? You could tell me Joe hasn't gotten dressed and left his basement for the last 3 weeks and I wouldn't know any better.

[Fenring]

If Biden actually were to withdraw outright, rather than run and lose to Trump, what are the DNC rules about that? Is the runner-up (Sanders) automatically upgraded to winner? Or is he "out" regardless of whether Biden leaves? If so, does that mean the DNC leaders just pick their candidate themselves and run them against Trump? This whole "it's a private organization" thing is such baloney. The laws on that need to change post haste.

[NobleHunter]

If Biden actually were to withdraw outright, rather than run and lose to Trump, what are the DNC rules about that? Is the runner-up (Sanders) automatically upgraded to winner? Or is he "out" regardless of whether Biden leaves? If so, does that mean the DNC leaders just pick their candidate themselves and run them against Trump? This whole "it's a private organization" thing is such baloney. The laws on that need to change post haste.

I don't think there are rules. If Biden withdraws before the convention, the delegates can chose whomever they want. Sanders would have advantages there but wouldn't necessarily win. If it's after Biden is officially the nominee, then I think his VP pick would likely be promoted to the main spot.

[Fenring]

I don't think there are rules. If Biden withdraws before the convention, the delegates can chose whomever they want. Sanders would have advantages there but wouldn't necessarily win. If it's after Biden is officially the nominee, then I think his VP pick would likely be promoted to the main spot.

I wonder whether the 'private company' policies at this point might not become unconstitutional. It would be difficult to deny at that point, if they really did pick someone else (imagine for the moment they picked Hillary!) that it would look quite a lot like usurping democracy and disenfranchising the voters. Don't you think? I know that typically rules aren't made about things until they become an issue, but I can't imagine that it's in any way sane to permit a small group of people to simply select the person the people can vote on in the general.

[Kasandra]

If Biden were to withdraw (more likely due to health than scandal), the convention would go ahead, though I think it most likely would be held electronically unless a miracle with the coronavirus actually does occur.  Sanders clearly would have the advantage that all of his delegates are committed on the first ballot, but many of Biden's delegates might stick with him even so in order to deny Sanders.  If Sanders didn't creep over the line on the first ballot then all delegates are unbound.  That could open the door for a dark horse nominee to snag the selection.  If that were to happen, it would be more likely to be Cuomo than Hillary.  Cuomo would pummel Trump in the election, but if it was Hillary the Dems could kiss the election goodbye.

[Fenring]

My question isn't really about the Dem's chances depending on who they would pick, and more on the actual legality of them picking someone un-voted for. It seems to me that any mechanism which removes the voters' ability to have any say of who will appear in the general is roughly on par with how the Chinese government works.

[Kasandra]

My question isn't really about the Dem's chances depending on who they would pick, and more on the actual legality of them picking someone un-voted for. It seems to me that any mechanism which removes the voters' ability to have any say of who will appear in the general is roughly on par with how the Chinese government works.

I think you're mixing up a bunch of different things.  The Party commitment to the delegates "wishes" is spelled out in the Party Rules.  In simple terms, the delegates are bound to specific candidates who have not withdrawn from the race on the first ballot.  Bernie Sanders hasn't withdrawn, but only suspended his campaign, so his pledged delegates have to vote for him on the first ballot.  If Biden likewise suspends his campaign, his delegates are still bound to him on the first ballot.  It gets murky after that, since the delegate election rules in most, but not all, states designate that the committed delegates are released before the second ballot.  The superdelegates (officially called uncommitted delegates) can't vote on the first ballot, but do get to vote on subsequent ballots.  There are about 400 or so of them.

The key is that the commitment of the Party to the delegates and vice versa is basically not in force after the first ballot, so anybody can receive votes on subsequent ballots.  Bernie has never been a registered Democrat, so in theory the convention delegates could cast votes for Cuomo, Trump, or even Fauci.  I'm sure I could think up a few dream tickets, but only when I've been hitting the bottle pretty hard.  I may get back to you on that point later.

[ScottF]

Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

[rightleft22]

Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

My own position on the matter for what it worth - nothing. Ms. Reade is not reliable - 20 year allegations are to late no matter what party the person the allegations are against.
It sucks but they go nowhere   

[Kasandra]

Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

She's being tried in absentia, except nobody really cares about her.  Biden is the one on trial, and in this case FOX has no interest in talking to him, as he can only raise his image from the depths they've plunged him to.  Better to keep bashing him, asking why he hasn't come forward, and also refusing to talk to him.  You could argue the media on the other side of this question are similarly reluctant to engage directly with him for the opposite reason.  One day he will come forward, but if I were him I wouldn't do it until Reade has been hung out to dry first, which any news organization other than FOX should be able to do.

[TheDrake]

Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

My own position on the matter for what it worth - nothing. Ms. Reade is not reliable - 20 year allegations are to late no matter what party the person the allegations are against.
It sucks but they go nowhere

Bill Cosby might disagree about late complaints going nowhere.

[ScottF]

Even-handed examination by the NYTimes here on why none of the networks are having Reade on their shows.

"There’s still no clear explanation, however, for why Ms. Reade hasn’t been on mainstream TV. Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic."

Fox is the only one, and she's refused because she doesn't her story to be part of a "partisan movement". She says that she may have to go on Fox because none of the other networks are interested in hearing her story, much less investigate it.

Super mysterious, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html

She's being tried in absentia, except nobody really cares about her.  Biden is the one on trial, and in this case FOX has no interest in talking to him, as he can only raise his image from the depths they've plunged him to.  Better to keep bashing him, asking why he hasn't come forward, and also refusing to talk to him.  You could argue the media on the other side of this question are similarly reluctant to engage directly with him for the opposite reason.  One day he will come forward, but if I were him I wouldn't do it until Reade has been hung out to dry first, which any news organization other than FOX should be able to do.

You seem to have missed the point. I did a quick google search and Biden has done 19 interviews spanning nearly four hours in the weeks since the allegation surfaced. Absolutely nobody is reluctant to interview him.

Fox would have Biden on in a heartbeat, they've reached out to him for comment to no avail and are probably asking his team for an interview daily. Saying Fox has no interest in speaking with him is a bizarre take.

[Kasandra]

To clarify, I'm not saying the legitimate news media don't want to talk to him, but as you have repeatedly pointed out, none of them have asked him about Reade.  If FOX had him on, they wouldn't ask about anything else, except maybe Ukraine.

[Kasandra]

Fox would have Biden on in a heartbeat, they've reached out to him for comment to no avail and are probably asking his team for an interview daily. Saying Fox has no interest in speaking with him is a bizarre take.

The only interest I've heard about FOX is from Sean Hannity.  See where that is going?  I would be interested in a pairing of Chris Wallace (FOX) and Anderson Cooper (CNN).  They have solid reputations as non-spin-mongers on their respective networks.  In fact, they could do the interview together for better perceived balance.  I can think of several others on other networks, but I would stay away from partisan provocateurs like anyone else on FOX.

[TheDrake]

WASHINGTON—Urging supporters to help out and chip in as much as they can, the Joe Biden presidential campaign sent a fundraising email Thursday reminding donors that sexual assault allegations don’t bury themselves. “Now, more than ever, the Biden campaign needs your support in sweeping this under the rug,” read the email in part, calling on each and every Biden supporter to do their part in defeating Donald Trump by looking the other way. “We’ll be honest—this isn’t going to be cheap. It’s not just going away like we thought it would. We know it seems like we can coast off the media suppressing the story, but there’s a lot of important work to be done behind the scenes to ensure these accusations never see the light of day. These sexual assault allegations have already broken through to The Washington Post, and if we don’t meet our fundraising goal by midnight tonight, it could be front page news tomorrow. ” The email added that if supporters donated $25 or more, the campaign would express their thanks by sending them a free “Allegations? What Allegations?” bumper sticker.

[Kasandra]

Some reason not to identify that as an Onion satire?

[cherrypoptart]

"Bill Cosby might disagree about late complaints going nowhere."

And Weinstein. Both in prison for allegations that came decades after the alleged incidents. I didn't keep up with the whole stories but I think in both cases too women who said they raped him ended up being together with them again voluntarily later, in Weinstein's case voluntarily having sex with him and I think in Cosby's case at least being on friendly terms with him. I could be mistaken about that but the point is that even if women don't say anything at the time, even if they seem to be okay with it for years afterward, that doesn't mean that the man can't be convicted of rape and sent to prison decades later anyway. That plays into Reade's situation the same way it did for the Weinstein and Cosby cases, in her favor by the precedents set.

[TheDeamon]

However, in the Weistein and Cosby cases, other accusers came out of the woodwork as time went on, as both men were multiple offenders.

So far it is only Reade in regards to Biden.

[ScottF]

“The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

Women. Although I’ acknowledge that someone acting pervy and making people feel uncomfortable is not analogous to Cosby/Weinstein stuff.

[cherrypoptart]

That's true that there aren't other accusers with Biden. Maybe he only did it the one time.

Of course maybe he didn't do it at all. Even by her own reports though she doesn't mention that she ever told him no or stop unless I missed it. If it happened maybe he thought it was consensual and then when he found out not quite he took that to heart and never did it again confining himself to shampoo brand guessing and the Japanese style after haircut shoulder rubs.

[DonaldD]

Biden's statement

[rightleft22]

Curious. What do the people on this site really think about such allegations coming to light 20+ years after the event and purity poultices. Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

Sexual harassment is a important issue and we need to create a environment where men and woman can come forward when such things happen. I fear this focus on 'he said she said' allegations rooted in the past and that can and will never progress beyond the 'he said, she said' allegations are undermining the movement. 

[Kasandra]

Speculating about this is like speculating whether the coronavirus was intentionally released from a lab or is naturally occurring.  We'll be forever in limbo unless and until Xi confesses.  In other words, 43% of the population blame China, and 43% are convinced that Biden did it.

[DonaldD]

purity poultices

Heh.

Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

Yes and yes?  Sometimes, a person entering public life, or entering into a process that could give that person public authority, will motivate victims who until then only had a personal stake in an assault.  I'm not saying that this is or is not the case here, just that there are rational reasons for this to happen and to have an effect.

Whether it can be abused is another question.

[Kasandra]

Biden's statement

Wow.  Just listening to the first minute or so.  Biden thinks women should be heard, but he's denying this happened.  Why would he deny it unless he was guilty?  When he denied it he looked like a deer caught in the headlights.  If he was being honest, he would have looked honest, so he's hiding the truth.  He gave his records to the University of Delaware, but is denying access to them.  Those records were categorized as private by the University over a year ago, which is common while the donor is still alive. 

Hey, but this is FOX Noose, so every denial is evidence of guilt, every hindrance to interfere wth fishing expeditions is proof of collusion. 

There can now be NO DOUBT that Biden did it.

[ScottF]

Curious. What do the people on this site really think about such allegations coming to light 20+ years after the event and purity poultices. Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

Sexual harassment is a important issue and we need to create a environment where men and woman can come forward when such things happen. I fear this focus on 'he said she said' allegations rooted in the past and that can and will never progress beyond the 'he said, she said' allegations are undermining the movement.

Definitely. I thought the Blasey-Ford process was a sh*t-show and incredibly thin on evidence. I feel the same way about Reade, minus the sh*t-show aspect although that could be coming still. I think in both cases “something” probably happened, but that’s less important than just being able to be exploited as political weapons by their respective opponents.

[ScottF]

Biden's statement

Wow.  Just listening to the first minute or so.  Biden thinks women should be heard, but he's denying this happened.  Why would he deny it unless he was guilty?  When he denied it he looked like a deer caught in the headlights.  If he was being honest, he would have looked honest, so he's hiding the truth.  He gave his records to the University of Delaware, but is denying access to them.  Those records were categorized as private by the University over a year ago, which is common while the donor is still alive. 

Hey, but this is FOX Noose, so every denial is evidence of guilt, every hindrance to interfere wth fishing expeditions is proof of collusion. 

There can now be NO DOUBT that Biden did it.

Yes. Like Kavanaugh, claiming you're innocent just means you really did it. The more vehement your denial, the more guilty you probably are. Kafka traps work the same whether red or blue.

[Fenring]

Curious. What do the people on this site really think about such allegations coming to light 20+ years after the event and purity poultices. Do we really care or is it just fuel to go after someone?

You mean, other than the fact that he clearly still does touch women uncomfortably with impunity? And in such a way where everyone knows it?