|
Post by michaelw on Apr 27, 2020 16:50:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 27, 2020 17:42:52 GMT -5
She--the neighbor--is already getting slimed on twitter. Biden has a crowd of rabid supporters who are every bit as bad as the Trumpers and Bernie Bros, though possibly not as numerous.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 27, 2020 20:06:42 GMT -5
This is far more credible evidence that they ever had against Kavanagh, and far more evidence that is needed to expel a student under the rules that Biden championed. I would really like a Biden supported to address that. They won't, but I really think they should.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 27, 2020 21:43:48 GMT -5
She--the neighbor--is already getting slimed on twitter. Biden has a crowd of rabid supporters who are every bit as bad as the Trumpers and Bernie Bros, though possibly not as numerous. Shocking, I know.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on May 1, 2020 2:30:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 4, 2020 17:28:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on May 7, 2020 0:16:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 7, 2020 19:20:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 7, 2020 19:39:01 GMT -5
Ahem... I'm kind of in the same place, though the one part of the Reade story that rings seriously true to me is her quote of Biden saying "Come on man, I heard you liked me." But accepting that quote is a long way from accepting her story in total, from accepting that Biden was "digitally penetrating" her when he said it. Maybe, just maybe, Biden made a pass at her, tried to kiss her or the like, and when she rebuffed him that's what he said. Because as Biden himself once noted: Maybe the essence here was just a clumsy pass from a guy with a pattern of being overly touchy-feely with women. And maybe Reade is using that essence--for whatever reasons--to make herself into a big story and/or to try to sink Biden.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on May 13, 2020 3:46:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on May 13, 2020 10:48:53 GMT -5
Interesting piece. While I think it does a decent job highlighting some of Reade's credibility issues, there are some pretty glaring flaws here, IMO. I don't know if it's really fair to say the complaint doesn't exist, based on what the National Archives is saying. Here's a quote from the National Archives: abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-secretary-records-requested-biden-released/story?id=70472855Basically, they're saying that if it existed, it would be the senate who would have it, and not them. That's not at all the same thing as saying it appears not to exist. It's a silly argument the author is making, IMO, especially since the senate says they won't release any records. Notice the sleight of hand here. The author is saying you'd need to believe at least 24 Biden staffers are covering up the story. But how can that be true? Reade never said she told 24 of her colleagues what happened. If they weren't in the know, then they hardly need to be "covering up" anything. Then there's the Lynda LaCasse bit... But read the tweet about LaCasse carefully here. She doesn't actually say that she's questioning her recollection of Reade's story. It sounds like she's saying she's not sure anymore if Reade's story is actually true. But that's not the same thing as saying she doesn't recall the story that Reade told her. Keep that in mind, because that's important for what the author claims later on. LOL. No it doesn't. I can't believe someone could write that with a straight-face. Gee, I wonder why. This is why the LaCasse bit from earlier is so important. The basic thesis here, that Reade's motive is rooted in something that happened in 2019, just doesn't square with Reade having told LaCasse about the sexual assault back in the 1990s. That's why the author basically says, well, hey, it looks like LaCasse is questioning her own recollection. But LaCasse didn't say she didn't recall the story. She said SHE DID recall the story. The author is basically claiming the exact opposite of what actually happened w/ LaCasse. Just my thoughts, of course.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 13, 2020 11:41:29 GMT -5
Lol on the "Biden's character and behavior" line. That line, in and of itself, undercuts the entire piece in my view. It turns the whole thing into a nakedly partisan defense of Biden, which is a shame because there are the makings of some valid points in there.
That said, I agree about the the assumptions re "covering up" the story. That's some seriously flawed reasoning.
It seems to me that the Biden-defenders/Reade-critics are almost all applying a hard and fast standard of evidence to everything, a standard which they--rightly--did not apply to Blasey Ford, because doing so would be grossly unfair. This still isn't a courtroom. As was the case with Kavanaugh, Biden's guilt or innocence will never be a legal conclusion; it's going to be perception, 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on May 13, 2020 13:22:00 GMT -5
Good points. Still not sure what to think about everything.
However, and I know this has been said before, the extreme contrast between how the left is approaching this vs the Kavanaugh situation is incredibly revealing as to how cynically and arbitrarily they weaponize the very issues they claim to care about.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 13, 2020 13:30:37 GMT -5
Really, that's the central takeaway for me.
I still don't believe Biden digitally penetrated her against her will, and I also don't believe nothing happened between them, whatsoever. But regardless, Biden isn't going to admit to any wrongdoing and his supporters aren't going to hold this against him (hell, I've seen several people claim that they believe Reade, but still support Biden completely). So, if he remains the nominee, he'll have to take on Trump without the considerable ammo of Trump's past "relations." Politically, that strikes me as foolish. At the the end of the day, Reade may actually end up costing Biden the election.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on May 13, 2020 13:45:13 GMT -5
Good points. Still not sure what to think about everything. However, and I know this has been said before, the extreme contrast between how the left is approaching this vs the Kavanaugh situation is incredibly revealing as to how cynically and arbitrarily they weaponize the very issues they claim to care about.
I think you make a good point here. Of course, it's true the other way around: Repubs defending Kavanaugh wanted the highest standards of proof then, whereas here a mere allegation will do. But that's politics for ya.
I also think there's another factor at play here (and it literally just occurred to me so it may be nonsense). I think part of what's going on (with regard to the left's hypocrisy) is an abject terror of four more years under Donald Trump. I say that because, in the early days of the MeToo movement, Dems/lefts were as quick as anyone to jump on offenders from their own party. Best example, of course, is Al Franken. A few piped up in support of him, but most were happy to watch him make a swift exit, despite his being an otherwise effective and representative senator.
I wonder if these Biden allegations had been made much earlier, and if there'd been a decent replacement candidate, maybe Biden would have had to fall on his sword or been forced to. Now, everyone's chips are on the table and a temporary walk back from the MeToo movement is being done for the greater good (as some people see it).
|
|