Second that.Like Christine Blasey Ford, she is indeed not a perfect victim.
But that doesn't mean she's wrong.
Second that.Like Christine Blasey Ford, she is indeed not a perfect victim.
But that doesn't mean she's wrong.
From what I read, the people who " back her up" are all telling us different stories, and not about rape. She has changed her story numerous times, I already supplied links in the thread that went into that in more detail. if you read what I posted above, I am not ignoring her at all, I am looking at what she has actually said here, so which version of her story do we believe when it keeps changing? I believe something happened, but I think her earlier versions of the story were probably far more accurate. Why would she be praising him online as of 2017 if he had raped her? Why would she praise him for his work to help sexual assault victims? Why did she publicly support his VP run? None of that makes any sense. It is not a matter of " revealing more progressively" it is a matter of changing the story each time she tells it. According to AP, they didn't go with the story the first time because she contradicted herself too many times, so they didn't find it credible. That is the same thing we keep hearing from the different sources, so which version is the actual truth here? It is far more likely the report will shed light on what really happened. No one made her file the report, it is far more likely that is what actually happened. When we keep hearing " Reade “did not mention the alleged assault or suggest there was more to the story.” , what version of her story is the truth here? Her making complaints to people about being asked to serve drinks, having nice legs, his weird smelling hair fetish that we have all witnessed is a far cry from actually raping her.Like Christine Blasey Ford, she is indeed not a perfect victim.
But that doesn't mean she's wrong.
![]()
Evaluating Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden
Is there any good reason to ignore Joe Biden’s accuser? Not from what we know so far.www.currentaffairs.org
Revealing progressively more publicly is not dishonest. She has multiple people who will back her up as telling them about the rape all the way back in 1993.
Technically they can be impeached, although it has only happened once and he was not removed. While I understand your points I still think I have to disagree, even with the stupid situation we see ourselves in now, because I think that we need at least once branch of government that has a separation from the passion of the people. I mean I don't think it would be that hard to get a ground swell of support and try and remove a justice for any unpopular decision. Like, I have a feeling if we had retention elections after Roe V Wade was established, we would have suddenly had to find different justices. It might help limit some of the worst supreme court decisions (I'm looking at you Dred Scott V Sandford) but it also might not.Judges can still be appointed, just they will also be able to be removed if the majority of the population in the US decides they are not doing a good job. Right now there is no accountability of the supreme court, it would add a layer of accountability that does not exist.
I am seeing that the separation that existed was dissolved the moment congress decided they would refuse to consider any of Obama's appointments in his term. It isn't like this will suddenly go back to the way it was now, they have set a new precedent. Since we no longer have that separation, we need to address and treat it accordingly. What keeps them from blocking more judges next time? They got what they wanted. They know it works to stack the bench and are rewarded for it so will keep doing it now they know it works well for them. Why stop?Technically they can be impeached, although it has only happened once and he was not removed. While I understand your points I still think I have to disagree, even with the stupid situation we see ourselves in now, because I think that we need at least once branch of government that has a separation from the passion of the people. I mean I don't think it would be that hard to get a ground swell of support and try and remove a justice for any unpopular decision. Like, I have a feeling if we had retention elections after Roe V Wade was established, we would have suddenly had to find different justices. It might help limit some of the worst supreme court decisions (I'm looking at you Dred Scott V Sandford) but it also might not.
Christine Blasey Ford didn't tell people of her attacker: “I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.” ,Second that.
I assume Joe did it. From what I've heard and know of him, sounds extremely likely. The issue is, what do you do about it?Christine Blasey Ford didn't tell people of her attacker: “I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.” ,
She didn't tell people that he didn't assault her and then turn around and tell them he did when no one wanted the story.
There is no such thing as " the perfect victim". It either happened or it didn't. Which " her side of the story" actually happened here? It is not possible for every version she has told thus far to be accurate. She reached out to the media to tell her story, it isn't like she was pressured or forced to do so reluctantly.
Getting rid of trump doesn't fix things. It's not like we vote him out, and institutional racism and homophobia are solved. It's not even a band-aid, since biden fixes nothing.Being ok with Trump in power is telling us we deserve to suffer. Your argument to Silvanus is that we must suffer as motivation to fix things. Except that is already our motivation in voting against Trump NOW.
I don't disagree, but I'm still hesitant to really jump on the train for that kinda thing.I am seeing that the separation that existed was dissolved the moment congress decided they would refuse to consider any of Obama's appointments in his term. It isn't like this will suddenly go back to the way it was now, they have set a new precedent. Since we no longer have that separation, we need to address and treat it accordingly. What keeps them from blocking more judges next time? They got what they wanted. They know it works to stack the bench and are rewarded for it so will keep doing it now they know it works well for them. Why stop?
Hell stacking the bench may be the only thing that keeps McConnell in office. As long as he does it, they will keep voting for him, so he can't afford to stop or he could lose his seat.
Getting rid of trump sure as hell helps fix things, but you are an accelerationist so you would prefer that everything crumbles down since you think you would be able to rebuild it into your ideal society.Getting rid of trump doesn't fix things. It's not like we vote him out, and institutional racism and homophobia are solved. It's not even a band-aid, since biden fixes nothing.
Biden may as well be from a different party then bernie. If your upset that people are being made to suffer, you should be angry at the right wing, corporatist democrats.
Well, very few things in life are instantaneous. If you get cut, it will take well over a few days before it is even healed at the forming new skin level. Let alone it getting to the same level of skin as everything else.Getting rid of trump doesn't fix things. It's not like we vote him out, and institutional racism and homophobia are solved. It's not even a band-aid, since biden fixes nothing.
Biden may as well be from a different party then bernie. If your upset that people are being made to suffer, you should be angry at the right wing, corporatist democrats.
What did he do exactly? According to Tara Reade, and the 8 women who all spoke up, he smelled their hair, touched her neck, and behaved generally like a dirty old man, but didn't rape any of them. Tara Reade's original story was he was creepy but “I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.” , it wasn't until no one cared about that happening did she just recently change her story to the opposite of what she said earlier. She would be the only one doing so. Trump has a court record of violently raping women, and a long paper trail of much worse than Biden's creepy old man BS happening. There is a difference here.I assume Joe did it. From what I've heard and know of him, sounds extremely likely. The issue is, what do you do about it?
If in November you have him and Trump from which to choose (3rd party votes considered throw aways) and Joe has a female running mate that would likely be the 1st woman POTUS as Joe will be either dead or incapacitated needing replacement, and Joe is promising Feminists judges in our courts and more spending on leftist women's issues, and that is what you want, don't you just vote for him anyway?
If he came out and said, "yeah, I'm a pretty rapey kinda guy but I'll push women's issues" don't you just back him anyway?
Some are saying Joe is the end of #MeToo credibility. I get where they are coming from and think it would be better to just say, for those that want this, that the movement matters more than the individual.
I would write, if Biden stuck his fingers in Tara's Veejay, he is a rapist. But if he is a rapist that would save lives (I think he would unleash oceans of bloodshed and crushing poverty, but that is me) you still need to back him.. My bottom line is always about the number of lives saved.
So why did she say that didn't happen when she asked for numerous interviews prior to this and had no mention of that when she filed her report? Why did she publicly commend Biden of his work to help fight against sexual assault on women in 2017? Why did she vote for him? How do you know Biden did any of those things when Tara doesn't seem to know either? According to all of her earlier recorded reports he didn't do anything like that, she literally stated she wasn't worried about him doing anything like that in prior interviews.I would write, if Biden stuck his fingers in Tara's Veejay, he is a rapist. But if he is a rapist that would save lives (I think he would unleash oceans of bloodshed and crushing poverty, but that is me) you still need to back him.
No apparent reason? Biden was a powerful US Pol, not some pimple faced jock minor at a party. She had reason to lie to support him for reasons I am stating. She was, politically, on his side, rapist or not. I'm hearing that she has timely corroborative witnesses. That it is her mom that called Larry King in 1993 about unspecified abusive behavior. Biden's recent very poor showing with Mika. (Mika calls this assault. Sorry, but non-consensual penetration with fingers is rape).So why did she say that didn't happen when she asked for numerous interviews prior to this and had no mention of that when she filed her report? Why did she publicly commend Biden of his work to help fight against sexual assault on women in 2017? Why did she vote for him? How do you know Biden did any of those things when Tara doesn't seem to know either? According to all of her earlier recorded reports he didn't do anything like that, she literally stated she wasn't worried about him doing anything like that in prior interviews.
If he was a rapist, he should be jail. So should Trump. But everything I see right now is showing that didn't happen, according to what Tara herself, has actually said.
As it is, we have proof that Tara has lied. As her story continues to change, it makes her look less credible every time she changes it,
So lets compare these two side by side. Trump has actual court records of him violently attacking and raping a woman and you voted for him.
Biden has a woman who publicly commended him for his work to help end sexual assault on women, told everyone he speaks the truth, voted for him, and contact multiple media outlets who recorded her saying that she wasn't worried about Biden doing anything like that then changed her story after having her story rejected because she contradicted herself and that is somehow " just as bad" or even worse? Yea..
I believe Tara, I believe what she said the first time about Biden smelling her hair and being a creep, not this new story about her claiming she lied the first time for no apparent reason. No one forced her to contact news outlets and have them hear her story, the news stories seeing a non story is not a reason to then make the story better so people will want it. It is either truth or not, but it isn't even possible for all her stories to be truth at this point because they contradict each other.
As always when talking about ACA, i don't consider it a good policy, in fact I consider it a failed policy. In the face of ballooning healthcare costs, the ACA had actually 0 effect either on healthcare costs or on the number of people going bankrupt because of out of control healthcare costs. Additionally, for the doom saying about Trump cutting Medicare and Medicaid, neither program's spending has decreased during his administration. In fact it's increased. As far as I can tell, ACA and the dismantling of ACA has 0 impact on the country statistically.Maybe. But sometimes the work is simply defending what you have, or making small and gradual shifts in how a problem is viewed and what solutions are viable. It's worth remembering that if progressives become more powerful, the Democratic Party - including the DNC and Biden - will have to bend to them anyway.
* * *
There are two obvious dangers for the Democrats with four more years of Trump:
Firstly, if he kills the ACA (whether outright, or undermining it in ways until it becomes unviable), the USA has potentially lost even that modest advance in universal healthcare for decades, because it'll need Democratic control of the presidency and both houses (with a Senate supermajority) just to get something that weak back. With it already there, you've got at least a beachhead to expand the idea and reform towards better universal coverage.
Secondly, you'll find your courts overrun by hardcore conservatives who are effectively impossible to remove outside retirement and death, and will spend decades delaying or sinking progressive programs in the courts no matter what politicians you elect. I don't fancy the odds on Ruth Bader Ginsburg lasting another four years, she'll be replaced by a fresh-faced 50-year-old ultraconservative anti-abortionist who'll be around for 30 years and a 6-3 SCOTUS majority in the short term. (Although honestly at that point if I were the Democrats, I'd expand SCOTUS with liberals to 11 or 13 justices as a great big "Fuck you".)
Any talks about where Biden stands now ends with "He's a serial liar, working for a group of serial liars, and I have no reason to believe he'll follow through on any progressive policy because that's not what the DNC does."snip
...and how much of their platform did they manage to enact with 2 years of control of both houses of Congress and the President? It's weird that Obama didn't get that much done (aside from passing what literally started as a Republican healthcare plan and then compromised further right) despite having a majority in both houses. Weird that there was so much emphasis on a need to compromise with Republicans when Dems controlled both houses.they just want to get some republicans to vote for them so they can get control over both the white house and congress, but their platform is the most progressive they have had in our lifetime regardless.
Or alternatively, the Dems need to find a way to sell themselves in some mixture of the Midwest, the South, and Appalachia. Dems have trouble being attractive in rural areas, except Sanders. He seemed to have no trouble drawing crowds and applause in places that were otherwise solidly Trump country.In terms of regions to win. Because not all votes are equal in the US due to how regions are divided, unless we can convince all the democrats to move from the cities and into Mitch McConnell's and Rand Paul's districts and boot all their arses, we still have to manage to win some conservative districts to get the white house and majority in congress. In much of the US, " liberal" is a dirty word due to decades of mindless propaganda.
I think it's telling that the only federal body whose election is directly effected by gerrymandering (aka the House) looks the way it does. If the REDMAP gerrymandering were as powerful as claimed, Dems wouldn't have taken the House. You know *why* Dems took the House? Because REDMAP assumed "typical" turnout numbers, and Republicans turnout and vote in consistent predictable numbers pretty much regardless, while Dems don't - "typical" turnout for Dems is much much lower than the share of the population who would vote Dem if they bothered to vote - getting them to actually go out and vote is the hard part.Yes and no due to gerrymandering and how regions are divided.
If we assume that Dems are going to support something like M4A (hint: a lot of them won't because they're much further right than they like to pretend), then Dems already have the House vote if they don't lose it this year. The Senate vote would require them to win back ~4 seats from the GOP, out of 25 GOP Senate seats up for grabs.Show me the votes in both the House and the Senate that we have to get M4A passed within the next 4 years. Oh yea? We don't have them, not even close, not going to get anywhere near enough no matter how we look at it.
Just going to point out again how hypocritical I find the folks who will question and scrutinize the Reade accusation against Biden who acted like the Ford accusation against Kavanaugh was definitely, unquestioningly true. Is it #BelieveWomen or is it #BelieveWomenWhoHarmRepublicans?EDIT: Also according to Tara Reade, she said that if a report surfaces, the report would not corroborate her story because she did not report a sexual assault in her complaint at the time. She apparently has changed her story numerous times and we are getting different accounts of events from the different people she told. Why is her story constantly changing?
That's totally not true.As always when talking about ACA, i don't consider it a good policy, in fact I consider it a failed policy. In the face of ballooning healthcare costs, the ACA had actually 0 effect either on healthcare costs or on the number of people going bankrupt because of out of control healthcare costs. Additionally, for the doom saying about Trump cutting Medicare and Medicaid, neither program's spending has decreased during his administration. In fact it's increased. As far as I can tell, ACA and the dismantling of ACA has 0 impact on the country statistically.
Weren't there like also 4 other woman with charges against Kavanaugh? As far as I can tell, no one else has come up with anything against Biden.Just going to point out again how hypocritical I find the folks who will question and scrutinize the Reade accusation against Biden who acted like the Ford accusation against Kavanaugh was definitely, unquestioningly true. Is it #BelieveWomen or is it #BelieveWomenWhoHarmRepublicans?