Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Because most people who've heard the accusations don't find them credible.

 

Without further evidence (which we'll never get on something this old), there are way too many inconsistencies and changes in her story over time. This article does a very good job highlighting some of them.

 

Not that it's very relevant at all but the evolution of her feelings toward Russia are very strange.

How do you know whether "most people" find her credible or not?

Link to comment

5 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I don't. I'm simply offering up alternative explanations for why her allegations are not getting traction. 

 

Perhaps "most people" should've been replaced with those media outlets mentioned in the tweet.

And "found her credible" can be replaced with 'want to hear about it.'  C Blasie Ford's story had facial weaknesses that didn't require anyone to review her opinion on foreign policy.  None of the usual suspects will again say Victims must not only be heard, they must be believed.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Because most people who've heard the accusations don't find them credible.

 

Without further evidence (which we'll never get on something this old), there are way too many inconsistencies and changes in her story over time. This article does a very good job highlighting some of them.

 

Not that it's very relevant at all but the evolution of her feelings toward Russia are very strange.

 

While that article does a good job of combing through her twitter "likes" in order to show questionable motives, it is clearly written as a hit piece.

 

There are differences and similarities between this case and the Ford/Kavanaugh case. With Kavanaugh, the alleged victim recalled many credible details of the night in question, which lined up with many other facts that we later heard about Kavanaugh. It painted a very credible picture. However, there were certain other details that were quite fuzzy, which can reasonably be attributed to the passage of time and the traumatic responses that occur in the minds of many victims. 

 

In the Reade/Biden case (unless it has been posted and I haven't seen it), the same detail has not been shared, so the story hasn't really come into focus...yet. Her twitter history and thoughts on Putin are intriguing, but does not provide strong evidence either way regarding the sexual assault claim. She does not necessarily have the same credibility that Ford did. I will admit to not having read all of the information yet.

 

HOWEVER: we should take caution with jumping to conclusions on this case any differently than we jumped to conclusions in the Kavanaugh case, and be aware of our political biases. The same discussion we had back then still holds true: sexual assault victims might give inconsistent details, rationalize their attackers' behaviors (and their own), and choose not to come forward right away (if at all) for a variety of very legitimate reasons. When Ford came forward, many of us championed her courage and bristled at the right wings attacks on her. Let's not swing too far in the opposite direction now.

 

In any such case, the evidence needs to be considered, and it is fair to question political motives. But some of the response so far borders on many of the same reasons that some victims never come forward at all. We are living in strange times. It is okay to be skeptical of everything we see and hear, but we must also acknowledge our own biases as we try to discern fact from fiction.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

I think the reason this doesn't get much air time is that even if we take her story as 100% accurate, it's still a she-said/he-said.

 

Her story evolved, where at first she said he touched her and her hair in ways that made her uncomfortable. She "felt like a lamp." Recently, she has disclosed the allegation that Biden actually assaulted her, penetrating her with his fingers.

 

She stated there were no witnesses to this incident. To date I have not read an article that said she shared that detail with the confidantes she talked about, her friend or brother, contemporaneously. If either has given an on-the-record interview where they say she told them Biden did that specific act back then, I haven't seen it.

 

Biden, of course, denies this happened. Officials in his staff say no such complaints have ever been levied against him, and specifically not by Reade. 

 

So, at face value, an assault with no evidence and no witnesses that took place 27 years ago, which she says she disclosed to two people, and Biden's camp says was never reported.

 

Even ignoring her political affiliations or her Putin stuff or her evolving story, if the above bolded allegation is all you have, what should the press be doing with that?  How credibly should that be taken?

 

She has the right to be heard, and her story listened to respectfully. We've done that.

 

Now what?

Link to comment

1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

None of the usual suspects will again say Victims must not only be heard, they must be believed.

And, it's also amazing how Republicans all of a sudden are so concerned about an allegation of sexual misconduct that has been brought up from the past.  

 

Meanwhile, supporting a President who is well known for sexual assault.  He even brags about it.

 

Sorry, Republicans have absolutely zero moral high ground on this subject.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment

I'm not sure why people are still interacting with Joe after all this time of twisting facts and arguing in bad faith.

 

The mantra with Blasey Ford was that she had a right to be heard. Not believed. No one has a "right" to be believed.

 

With Reade, as with Blasey Ford, they deserve a safe environment where they can tell their story. After all the evidence comes out, then we can decide if we believe them. 

 

We have to give them that space not just for them, but to show future victims that coming forward won't ruin them. Our society has a pretty bad record on that so far.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I'm not sure why people are still interacting with Joe after all this time of twisting facts and arguing in bad faith.

 

The mantra with Blasey Ford was that she had a right to be heard. Not believed. No one has a "right" to be believed.

 

With Reade, as with Blasey Ford, they deserve a safe environment where they can tell their story. After all the evidence comes out, then we can decide if we believe them. 

 

We have to give them that space not just for them, but to show future victims that coming forward won't ruin them. Our society has a pretty bad record on that so far.

 

Not one honest person on this board, not for a second, will believe that Joe suddenly cares about sexual assault, victims rights, or credible evidence.

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, knapplc said:

I think the reason this doesn't get much air time is that even if we take her story as 100% accurate, it's still a she-said/he-said.

 

Her story evolved, where at first she said he touched her and her hair in ways that made her uncomfortable. She "felt like a lamp." Recently, she has disclosed the allegation that Biden actually assaulted her, penetrating her with his fingers.

 

She stated there were no witnesses to this incident. To date I have not read an article that said she shared that detail with the confidantes she talked about, her friend or brother, contemporaneously. If either has given an on-the-record interview where they say she told them Biden did that specific act back then, I haven't seen it.

 

Biden, of course, denies this happened. Officials in his staff say no such complaints have ever been levied against him, and specifically not by Reade. 

 

So, at face value, an assault with no evidence and no witnesses that took place 27 years ago, which she says she disclosed to two people, and Biden's camp says was never reported.

 

Even ignoring her political affiliations or her Putin stuff or her evolving story, if the above bolded allegation is all you have, what should the press be doing with that?  How credibly should that be taken?

 

She has the right to be heard, and her story listened to respectfully. We've done that.

 

Now what?

I mostly agree except that we haven't heard her story. Where are the interviews asking her for details and where is the follow-up investigative journalism? I don't understand your point about her brother and her friend - both said she told them about the assault at the time.

 

And the bolded part is almost exactly the same as the Ford/Kavanaugh case isn't it?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I mostly agree except that we haven't heard her story. Where are the interviews asking her for details and where is the follow-up investigative journalism? I don't understand your point about her brother and her friend - both said she told them about the assault at the time.

 

And the bolded part is almost exactly the same as the Ford/Kavanaugh case isn't it?

 

Why haven't we heard her story?  She's given two different interviews, and she has a twitter account where she's been talking about it. Where are you hearing she hasn't given her full story? And what more might there be?  And why hasn't she disclosed her full story in those interviews? If she hasn't, when/where will she?

 

The point about the brother and friend is that everything I've read says she told them about Biden at the time - which bolsters her story because contemporaneous relating of a story means far more than twenty years later telling them about it.  But I've never heard specifically from brother or friend what she told them. Which version of the story did she tell them then? The finger part or the lamp part? Both? Different? That's relevant information.

 

The bold is not dissimilar to any story like this.

 

Again:  What should happen now?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Why haven't we heard her story?  She's given two different interviews, and she has a twitter account where she's been talking about it. Where are you hearing she hasn't given her full story? And what more might there be?  And why hasn't she disclosed her full story in those interviews? If she hasn't, when/where will she?

 

The point about the brother and friend is that everything I've read says she told them about Biden at the time - which bolsters her story because contemporaneous relating of a story means far more than twenty years later telling them about it.  But I've never heard specifically from brother or friend what she told them. Which version of the story did she tell them then? The finger part or the lamp part? Both? Different? That's relevant information.

 

The bold is not dissimilar to any story like this.

 

Again:  What should happen now?

She's told her story in pieces and parts. I'd like a sit down interview with specific questions about the details. But even more so, interviews with detailed questions for her friend and brother.

 

What do you think should happen?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

She's told her story in pieces and parts. I'd like a sit down interview with specific questions about the details. But even more so, interviews with detailed questions for her friend and brother.

 

What do you think should happen?

 

It really depends on what evidence comes out.  If her brother and her friend agree with the fingers part of the story, then Biden needs to produce a better response than basically a press release.

 

But even if both the brother and the confidante agree the worst of it is the story she told them in 1993, there's not much else to do.  Biden will deny it, and we're back to a she-said/he-said.  We have no idea if Biden is lying, we have no idea if she is lying, or lied then.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

She's told her story in pieces and parts. I'd like a sit down interview with specific questions about the details. But even more so, interviews with detailed questions for her friend and brother.

 

What do you think should happen?

Do we know that ABC, CBS, etc hasn't looked into giving her that chance?  If there is a story, I would love to hear it in a way like you mentioned. 

 

My bottom line take:  I plan to cast a vote for Bernie in the NE primary.  I was going to vote for Biden, but this has made me a little nervous.

 

But if Biden ends up the Dem nominee, I will still without a doubt vote for him over Trump.  Why? Because one of them is going to be President, we'd "presumably" have a sex offender in the office either way, and Biden would be less of a train wreck than Trump.

 

We all have our ideals, but at the end of all of this we'll be given a choice between two candidates in the general election.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It really depends on what evidence comes out.  If her brother and her friend agree with the fingers part of the story, then Biden needs to produce a better response than basically a press release.

 

But even if both the brother and the confidante agree the worst of it is the story she told them in 1993, there's not much else to do.  Biden will deny it, and we're back to a she-said/he-said.  We have no idea if Biden is lying, we have no idea if she is lying, or lied then.

Much like Ford during the Kavanaugh hearings, I'd like a more thorough interview with her to see if I find her credible or not. And if the brother or friend provide corroboration for her story, then I'd like some hard questions to be asked of Biden and not just his campaign staff.

 

At the end of the day, there's rarely hard evidence in cases like this and we're going to have to make up our own minds about seems like the most likely scenario.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...