|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 26, 2020 15:57:31 GMT -5
reason.com/2020/03/26/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-me-too-believe-women/I didn't know if I should put this in the ongoing thread on Metoo or the dem primary race, but decided to do it's own thread. What you have is a decades old accusation against a notable figure that could be because of political reasons. If we go by standards of innocent until proven guilty, there's probably no way to vet this. You could possibly see someone come forward and be able to verify she either was at the gym or even that she wasn't on that day. You might have someone come forward and say she said it happened back then, or that she talked about what a thrill it was to meet Biden on that day. But would either person be more or less believable than that? Of course, Joe Biden was fine to assume the worse against Kavanaugh. He spearheaded the policies that have lead to many college students being railroaded because all evidence is seen as proof of guilt. Text messages that indicate it was considered consensual, that a person wanted and even sought sex, changing accounts of what they claim happened, even admitting they were lying are considered proof of trauma. Witnesses that prove someone walked away are simply ignored. I'd love to see Joe say he should be judged by that same standard. The question is, will people judge Biden the same way they judged Kavanaugh? I doubt it. Of course, Trump and even Sanders may assume he's guilty for political reasons. And we can expect to see Tara Reade at any debates between Trump and Biden, invited by Trump himself. Even if she's somehow discredited. I honestly feel as if I have nobody to vote for this election.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 26, 2020 16:15:39 GMT -5
She has people who corroborate her story, insofar as they acknowledge Reade told them about the incident just after it occurred. It also seems like she's no fan of Trump's at all, so she may not let him use her. But Sanders, that's a different story. And there's a lot of noise coming from the far left on this right now. If this can't all be put to bed, it might become a real issue.
My own two cents: I don't know if I believe her or not. Her story isn't that crazy; I could imagine Biden behaving exactly as she claims. But her story isn't that compelling, either. Still, the fact that there are people saying that she told them about the incident back when it happened pushes the story towards believability, if just slightly.
It will be interesting to see if the story has any legs, if the mainstream media pays any attention to it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 26, 2020 17:08:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean by compelling. The story seems compelling and credible at least within a vacuum. If this happened, it would be a felony offense. I'm thinking you used the wrong word there. Convincing? I neither believe her nor disbelieve her. But to me, it's a hypocrisy thing.
Let him agree to a college hearing. Have someone investigate it. Hand him the report has he's going in. He's not allowed to ask any questions. Deny any witnesses. Have every inconsistency in her testimony be considered more proof of his guilt. Hide the specifics. If he doesn't deny something he didn't know he was accused of doing, hold that against him.
Or have Biden say he's an ass for insisting college students be judged by that and he'll do better.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 3, 2020 5:30:04 GMT -5
Her story has smelled a bit fishy to me since she came out with it. The timing is very suspicious and her story keeps changing. Not saying the accusation is false, but it is certainly highly suspect. Surprisingly, this story was covered in a more critical way in Salon, of all places, that bastion and safe-haven for all things delusionally progressive and full-throated defenders of#BelieveAllWomen: www.salon.com/2020/03/31/a-woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-all-hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/Also, on the "TimesUp denied her any support" accusation: From what I've seen, The Hill (mainly on their YouTube morning show, "Rising") is the main outlet vociferously attacking both Biden and the "mainstream liberal media" for "ignoring" this story and orchestrating a "cover-up." However, Rising is also nauseatingly populist, absolutely loves Bernie Sanders, and trashes Biden and every other democratic candidate every chance they get. And Katie Halpern, the one mentioned above who is mainly responsible for this story, is really good friends with Krystal Ball (host of Rising) and has a regular weekly segment on the show. From my outsider's perspective, it seems the only media outlet trying to orchestrate anything here are the people connected to The Hill's "Rising" show, as this comes across as yet another one of their daily smears against Biden while they whine that Bernie isn't the nominee. They (especially Ball) have been nearly apoplectic this election cycle over Sanders getting his ass kicked and have shown a blatant, seething contempt for Biden (and all the former nominees who have now endorsed him) on a near daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 3, 2020 7:14:47 GMT -5
To be sure, when a politician is accused it always has a political aspect to it. His supporters are ignoring it, the other side is going all out. Trump has been silent as far as I know, but that might change when it's primary time. Of course, Trump has his own accusations, far more. A normal politician would not engage in it based on that, but Trump isn't normal and he's a hypocrite.
However, why are the people who took Ford-Blasey at her word, despite the fact that nobody she named at the party remembered being at a party with Kav, but this isn't getting the same airplay? Has any of the media (Not Fox, as I'm assuming they are covering it, or will) had any stories about it?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 3, 2020 18:07:22 GMT -5
However, why are the people who took Ford-Blasey at her word, despite the fact that nobody she named at the party remembered being at a party with Kav, but this isn't getting the same airplay? Has any of the media (Not Fox, as I'm assuming they are covering it, or will) had any stories about it? Look, you can't expect an insignificant sexual assault accusation (from many years ago, I should add) to get as much attention as things that really affect women, like the proven fact that Bernie Sanders said that a woman couldn't be elected president. /end sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 3, 2020 23:50:32 GMT -5
However, why are the people who took Ford-Blasey at her word, despite the fact that nobody she named at the party remembered being at a party with Kav, but this isn't getting the same airplay? Has any of the media (Not Fox, as I'm assuming they are covering it, or will) had any stories about it? Because that entire thing was a cynical, dishonest farce that Trump's enemies feverishly leveraged to try to destroy anything associated with him? These reactions/non-reactions lay bare the fact that these types of stories are often just mouth-frothing political theater rather than true expressions of actual concern. Political zealots rarely actually want justice; they just want revenge.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 6, 2020 19:13:07 GMT -5
Business is picking up:
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 13, 2020 3:09:28 GMT -5
This has gotta be some of the most bullshit reporting in the history of bullshit reporting... Translation: "Besides the pattern of sexual misconduct that we found, there was no pattern of sexual misconduct." Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 13, 2020 9:09:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm all for giving Biden a fair shake on this new accusation, but the idea that he has no history of sexual misconduct-style accusations is simply not sustainable.
I generally don't believe that the mainstream media purposefully protects politicians on the left, but it's tough to argue against such a proposition when the paper of record is so obviously doing just that, when it comes to Biden.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 13, 2020 10:16:03 GMT -5
Yeah, they've certainly exhibited a seismic shift in their response to and coverage of Biden compared to their coverage of Kavannaugh.
I also read that they deleted the tweet (after much criticism on Twitter) and edited a similar line out of their online story about Biden.
As I've said before, New York Times gonna New York Times.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 13, 2020 11:24:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 14, 2020 13:16:31 GMT -5
The guy who made the changes to the Times story was senior editor Dean Baquet. NYT columnist Ben Smith asked him about why he did it, then asked him some more questions: That's so ridiculous. As the Reason piece notes, Kavanaugh was a "running, hot story" because big media outlets--including the Times made him such, by breathlessly reporting every new development or pseudo-development. And people were unaware of Reade largely because that same media opted to hold off reporting on her, even though Biden is a "running, hit story" because he's the frontrunner for the Dem nomination and because there have been previous stories about his inappropriate behavior (though Baquet decided to cut that info out).
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 14, 2020 13:25:16 GMT -5
LOL. And Joe Biden isn't?!
Baquet is so blinded by his own ideology he can't even see how ridiculous that statement, and his entire reasoning here, is.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 15, 2020 22:12:05 GMT -5
medium.com/@greyson.vanarsdale/the-nyt-article-on-tara-reade-is-a-masterclass-on-journalistic-sleight-of-hand-bed7de4f901fThis is a pretty good take-down of the NYT story. This whole thing still leaves me with a nagging question, though. Why is it so acceptable that when powerful people are accused of sexual assault, it's only the accuser who should have any explaining to do? Why is it that (almost) nobody wants to press Biden to offer up anything more than a blanket denial through a spokesperson? To me, it's completely outrageous that--unlike Reade--Biden can simply ignore the whole thing and hope that it goes away. Which seems likely to be an effective tactic. And since he'll never have to offer up anything more than a blanket denial, we'll never know whose side of the story would've been the more credible one.
|
|