The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[sandorski]

Lol! The point, unsurprisingly, was lost on you. Keep being useful!

The point was to mock the idea of thorough investigation. It is over when the questions get answered, not before.

 

[sandorski]

When is Tara coming before the senate or subjecting herself to any sworn testimony?

Looks like more poor understanding from you.

When is the Senate having a Hearing?

 

[soundforbjt]

When is the Senate having a Hearing?

When Biden is impeached by Republicans (if he's elected). Or right after Trump has his for the allegations against him.

 

[sandorski]

When Biden is impeached by Republicans (if he's elected). Or right after Trump has his for the allegations against him.

lol, both seem plausible. Sadly I suppose....

 

[fskimospy]

lol, both seem plausible. Sadly I suppose....

I think we all realize that Republicans will impeach the next Democratic president regardless of the merits if they control the House, and even with the census and redistricting they will probably control the House in 2022 as they will retain a massive default advantage.

 

[interchange]

Let’s start with the inherent bias of the hashtag #ibelieveher, along with the inherent bias in acknowledging the courage of the accuser coming forward. It’s an affirmation of support for the accuser to provide a space to air the accusations.

Let’s start with Kamala Harris. In the early days of Dr. Ford coming forward, when it was premature to establish the credibility of the accusations, Kamala Harris said “I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage.”

“She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter. And she has the courage to come forward. She has nothing to gain.”

This was an assertive position in support of the accuser in a he said/she said scenario.

Everything Senator Harris said above applied to Reade, yet her statement on Reade is:

“I can only speak to the Joe Biden I know.”

I can draw this contrast for just above every Democratic Senator who affirmatively and assertively believed Dr. Ford.

I was thinking you were referring to posters here, not politicians for some reason. In principle, I would agree that those are loaded. They are prone to hyperbolic statements and protecting partisan interests publicly. I think most of that is trying to project a certain image than the reality of how someone feels internally and where they will side when more facts are out. In this case, there were some early flags which were not the case with Blasey-Ford. I think it would take a more careful analysis of statements over time to see whether people rushed to support Blasey-Ford in the absence of more facts.

But I do agree that there's a problem with the communication and that the communication often represents political and/or partisan motivations which I very much do not like. Kamala Harris, in particular, is someone I see who is extremely opportunistic and comes off as disingenuous overall. That's not a new impression to reply to your complaint. I've expressed that quite clearly here before. Makes me wonder if you would care to highlight a different politician in case it comes across differently.

 

[Jhhnn]

In a move reminiscent of Robert Mueller’s fake accuser, Reade canceled a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace.

I guess she figured that the Trump channel would be a great softball outlet for pushing her ill-thought out and inconsistent smear job. Then someone probably tipped her off that Wallace is "almost" a real journalist and not a total Trump shill. So now she’s scared, she’s not ready....acting like every high profile scammer ever when the game falls apart.

I see the "politically convenient" canard is still being thrown about in this thread, when most of us have explained a myriad of inconsistencies and examples of why we don't find her accusations credible.

One can support the #MeToo Movement and not support allegations of sexual assault that do not ring true. If these two positions cannot coexist in the real world and in debates like this, the movement is no more than a hit squad and will be labled as such. As it stands...That’s not how I see the #MeToo movement. It’s too important, for too many victims of sexual assault and their allies, to be no more than that.

Yes. Thank you.

 

[Jhhnn]

When is the Senate having a Hearing?

Ask McConnell. It'll give him a laugh.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I was thinking you were referring to posters here, not politicians for some reason. In principle, I would agree that those are loaded. They are prone to hyperbolic statements and protecting partisan interests publicly. I think most of that is trying to project a certain image than the reality of how someone feels internally and where they will side when more facts are out. In this case, there were some early flags which were not the case with Blasey-Ford. I think it would take a more careful analysis of statements over time to see whether people rushed to support Blasey-Ford in the absence of more facts.

But I don't agree that there's a problem with the communication and that the communication often represents political and/or partisan motivations which I very much do not like. Kamala Harris, in particular, is someone I see who is extremely opportunistic and comes off as disingenuous overall. That's not a new impression to reply to your complaint. I've expressed that quite clearly here before. Makes me wonder if you would care to highlight a different politician in case it comes across differently.

I wasn’t accusing any posters of being hypocrites, even if there is a partisan angle to what constitutes credibility.

Since you asked me to volunteer another politician, I will offer and and every GOP Senator that challenged the credibility of Dr. Ford who now feel compelled to believe Reade. The GOP is no better. The only distinction I see is that Biden doesn’t like being held accountable to the standard he advocated for.

 

[Starbuck1975]

When is Tara coming before the senate or subjecting herself to any sworn testimony?

Looks like more poor understanding from you.

Given the character assassination she’s faced, why would she?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I am glad that you believe that Biden is innocent until proven guilty!!
It doesn`t mean that Reade is not lying.......there is a difference..

I never said Biden is guilty. I an saying we should afford him the level of due process he advocated for.

 

[soundforbjt]

Given the character assassination she’s faced, why would she?

Ford didn't chicken out...

 

[Starbuck1975]

So, who/what body should have a hearing on this case/allegation?

Democrats seem to favor arbitrary tribunals, so I suppose we can round up some Senators, have Biden face some loaded partisan questions, the Democrats nominate him anyway, and nothing happens.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Ford didn't chicken out...

Ford also had numerous Senators and pundits assertively advocating for her

 

[Fenixgoon]

Ford also had numerous Senators and pundits assertively advocating for her

She also received numerous death threats, was forced to move multiple times, and had a private security detail. And she testified anyway.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ford also had numerous Senators and pundits assertively advocating for her

Republicans scared to advocate for Reade other than State TV (Fox news)?

 

[dank69]

Let’s start with the inherent bias of the hashtag #ibelieveher, along with the inherent bias in acknowledging the courage of the accuser coming forward. It’s an affirmation of support for the accuser to provide a space to air the accusations.

Let’s start with Kamala Harris. In the early days of Dr. Ford coming forward, when it was premature to establish the credibility of the accusations, Kamala Harris said “I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage.”

“She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter. And she has the courage to come forward. She has nothing to gain.”

This was an assertive position in support of the accuser in a he said/she said scenario.

Everything Senator Harris said above applied to Reade, yet her statement on Reade is:

“I can only speak to the Joe Biden I know.”

I can draw this contrast for just above every Democratic Senator who affirmatively and assertively believed Dr. Ford.

Did Harris know Kavanaugh prior to his nomination? If she didn't, that alone explains away this particular inconsistency you think you have found.

 

[ivwshane]

Given the character assassination she’s faced, why would she?

Are you implying Ford didn’t face any character assassination. Please

 

[dank69]

Given the character assassination she’s faced, why would she?

Are you implying Ford didn’t face any character assassination. Please

Not to mention, Reade's character has not been assassinated, unless Starbuck has evidence that someone has lied about her somewhere.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given the character assassination she’s faced, why would she?

So dishonest. The whole effort has been to assassinate Biden's character.

 

[fskimospy]

The DNC is between a rock and a hard place. Remove Biden because he has dementia or remove Biden because his record of perversity has come too far out into the light of day. Smelling, touching, groping, swimming and now fingering.

Make no mistake, the DNC wants and more importantly needs him gone. The best scenario for the DNC is for Biden to drop out and they are going to get that wish granted. They muscled Bernie around for a second time and removing Biden, well that's just not going to play well even if he is an old white guy. He's being forced to drop out. Right now, you're seeing it. But no worries, that will be blamed on conservative voters, Trump, whomever. Democrats are always blameless - that modus operandi is not going away.

It solves secondary problems for the DNC because the women that are being supposedly considered as his running mate for VP makes him even more unelectable. You don't run someone with him who the voters have already rejected, you don't run someone with him who hates whitey. It just ain't gonna fly.

So instead of discussing whether this happened or that happened and the particulars of that while attempting to draw parallels with conservatives you hate, you should be discussing who is going to be your candidate? The DNC is not going to allow Bernie back into the fray (IMO he's gotten his payoff and won't return anyway) so just who is it going to be?

Biden said he'd pick a running mate by the end of this month. He'll bow out before the end of the week.

Hey @boomerang, just remembered this - I imagine writing this made you feel better emotionally at the time but now that it’s turned out to be laughably wrong have you reconsidered any of it?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Did Harris know Kavanaugh prior to his nomination? If she didn't, that alone explains away this particular inconsistency you think you have found.

No it doesn’t

 

[Starbuck1975]

So dishonest. The whole effort has been to assassinate Biden's character.

No it hasn’t. This whole “effort” is holding Biden to the standard he and other Democrats advocated for. Guess you don’t like the taste.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Are you implying Ford didn’t face any character assassination. Please

Are you suggesting women’s groups and the media haven’t rallied to protect Reade and afford her the benefit of the doubt the way they did Dr. Ford? Please.

 

[dank69]

No it doesn’t

Of course it does. Same as how you would treat accusations against Biden and accusations against someone you knew personally could never have done something they were being accused of.