"In March 2019, Flores wrote an op-ed for New York magazine's "The Cut" alleging then Vice President Joe Biden "inappropriately kissed and touched her after he offered to help her with her 2014 campaign" while the two were at a Las Vegas campaign rally.[38][39] She stated he walked up behind her, put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair, and planted a kiss on the back of her head. She wrote that, by acting in this manner, Biden had touched her in "an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it."
do you really find it difficult to believe that some people don't want to vote for a man who harrases women, let alone assaults them? which part of "joe is too creepy even if tara reade hadn't come forward" is unbelievable to you?"In March 2019, Flores wrote an op-ed for New York magazine's "The Cut" alleging then Vice President Joe Biden "inappropriately kissed and touched her after he offered to help her with her 2014 campaign" while the two were at a Las Vegas campaign rally.[38][39] She stated he walked up behind her, put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair, and planted a kiss on the back of her head. She wrote that, by acting in this manner, Biden had touched her in "an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it."
Again, it's not great but it's not sexual assault and don't pretend you've never seen an old person kiss the top of a kids head.
Do you really, REALLY not see a difference between that and what Reade is alleging?
"Don't vote for bernie because he told me a woman can't win"Elizabeth Warren sticking by Biden really sticks in the craw after she was so front and centre of the “believe women” message.
“Believe women. Unless it’s super politically inconvenient.” Doesn’t quite have the same kick.
If I believe that a man put his hands on a woman's shoulders and kissed the back of her head - but could still be a good President I have no moral authority? Okay.if you can read Flores allegation, and believe it, and still vote for joe, you have no moral authority
Are you some sort of therapist because you seem to be able to tell me what I'm thinking with a great deal of conviction. Fair play. Nobody batted an eyelid when van Persie joined United even though he had been accused of rape. If I remember rightly, the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence but he must have been guilty because why else would the woman have made the allegation in the first place. Players have committed manslaughter and walked straight back into the team. People will always turn a blind eye when it suits them.Forgive me if I'm unmoved by your label of an argument as 'lame' when you made the point that 'why are people getting their knickers in a twist over a guy who is being accused of his first offence?
It's telling that you had to use 'offence' as a euphemism for sexual assault because if you'd actually typed it out like that you'd have realised what a reprehensible point you'd attempted to make. 'Why are people getting annoyed over a guy accused of sexual assault?'. Hmm, I fecking wonder. I don't know what else to say if you seriously think that the fact the other candidate is even worse somehow means the whole thing is supposed to be collectively shrugged at and just regarded as an unpleasant sideshow.
Millions of people did vote for a candidate with zero allegations against his name. That came afterward. The question now is do you throw those votes away because of the allegation, and if so, shouldn't that allegation have to bear some burden of testing?Again, the fact this back and forth keeps going just dumbfounds me. If I were a democrat I'd just avoid the hassle.
Why not pick a candidate who has zero allegations to his name? Is it that hard to find one in US politics?
goodWhat if he slept around in college?
disqualifyingWhat if he cheated on his wife?
goodWhat if he smoked weed?
disqualifyingWhat if he got a DUI once?
disqualifyingWhat if he once punched an opponent on a basketball court, and got charged with assault?
disqualifyingWhat if one time, when he was really tired and his kids were young, he smacked one of them?
see above old man, see aboveAre all of those things okay? If not, can you let me know which ones are, and are not? And while your'e doing so, provide guidance for voters so we know how to conform properly?
bro you've spent the last 2 weeks arguing that joe is the lesser of two evils now you're telling us he'd be a good president?If I believe that a man put his hands on a woman's shoulders and kissed the back of her head - but could still be a good President I have no moral authority?
Just as a thought experiment - what if Reade came out tomorrow and said it wasn't true, but this evening the DNC had confirmed that Biden would not be the candidate?The mind boggles. "You guys, the precedent has been set. The Republicans elected a rapist, so we can't critcise the Dem's for running one." Like, the Dems had a chance to draw the line and say, "No, we're not the Republicans, we won't nominate a person with credible accusations of rape against them." Instead, they just threw out every one of their (supposed) principles, dragged the #MeToo movement out back and shot it, then turned around and started calling an alleged victim of sexual assault a liar.
Bwahahahaha. Okay - your list of Presidential candidates must be pretty short my friend. And certainly not involved in politics.good
disqualifying
good
disqualifying
disqualifying
disqualifying
see above old man, see above
feel free to ask more questions that are extremely easy to answer for the majority of us
bro you've spent the last 2 weeks arguing that joe is the lesser of two evils now you're telling us he'd be a good president?
the only thing thoughts experiments reveal is how much the person posing them thinksJust as a thought experiment - what if Reade came out tomorrow and said it wasn't true, but this evening the DNC had confirmed that Biden would not be the candidate?
Would they say, jeez, we should probably have done some proper investigating on that one before making our minds up?
that is a problem and one i want no part in maintainingBwahahahaha. Okay - your list of Presidential candidates must be pretty short my friend. And certainly not involved in politics.
Joe Biden is a shit candidate that literally no one can come up with a reason to vote for, other than "he's better than Trump." So even if they dropped him and the accusation then turned out to be false, it'd probably be a net-positive for them.Just as a thought experiment - what if Reade came out tomorrow and said it wasn't true, but this evening the DNC had confirmed that Biden would not be the candidate?
Would they say, jeez, we should probably have done some proper investigating on that one before making our minds up?
don't sell them short, joe biden also has a black friendJoe Biden is a shit candidate that literally no one can come up with a reason to vote for, other than "he's better than Trump." So even if they dropped him and the accusation then turned out to be false, it'd probably be a net-positive for them.
Sadly I do kind of agree there. Then again, all of the wise were telling us that Bernie Sanders will lose in November. And personally I'd take Bernie from weekend at Bernie's over Trump (cue jokes about far Biden is from that - fair ones)Joe Biden is a shit candidate that literally no one can come up with a reason to vote for, other than "he's better than Trump." So even if they dropped him and the accusation then turned out to be false, it'd probably be a net-positive for them.
thats a fair question. These are almost always situations where nobody else was present and "hard" evidence is scarce. The chances of getting much evidence about an incident that (might have) happened 27 years ago are close to zero. I don't know if there are people/records that could add anything useful.I agree if he was convicted of sexual assault. Or even if numerous journalists had researched the story and found a pattern, or any evidence whatsoever to prove it. Flip it on its head - if you're Joe Biden how do you clear up the Reade allegation? There's no date, there's no location, the only contemporaneous witness is her brother who has proven unreliable. There's no record, no police report and up until 18 months ago there is a history of her praising Biden and supporting - amongst other things - his position on violence against women.
How does Joe Biden 'prove' that he did not do this? And if he can't, where are we?
Good post, I think that's what a lot of us are struggling with.thats a fair question. These are almost always situations where nobody else was present and "hard" evidence is scarce. The chances of getting much evidence about an incident that (might have) happened 27 years ago are close to zero. I don't know if there are people/records that could add anything useful.
In the legal system we have the presumption of innocence. The burden of prove is on the prosecution and they have to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We know that justice systems struggle badly with cases of sexual violence (= perpetrators don't get punished) and its still very hard to come up with a better system for this problem.
In the context of politics, especially when we talk about the presidency (or supreme court justices....), relying on legal standards/values is a mistake. It has to be almost the opposite. When there is doubt that the person is innocent, (s)he shouldn't be considered. In the context of the justice system its much more important to not lock up innocent people even so this results in guilty men escaping punishment. When it comes to the heads of governments, I am much more worried about electing guilty people even so this increases the chances of making the opposite error. My view is that we can be honest about the problems of these cases and the resulting uncertainty. I don't have to pretend that I know what happened by doing some magical detective work on flimsy evidence. The justice system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused, because the alternative would be even worse. In the context of politics, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the accuser unless there are gigantic red flags. When I have learned anything from the last years, its that powerful men are pretty big offenders regardless of background (media, culture, sports, accademia, ....(*insert long list*)). A lot of accusations turned out to be true and its hard overstate how widespread this was/is. This can only change, when the uncertainty is not reflexively leveraged against the accuser.
I followed the Kavanaugh disaster fairly closely and this was an absolute no-brainer. Never ever in a million years should he have been appointed. I didn't follow the accusations against Biden in great detail. From my (superficial) perspective these two cases are quite different. Yet I still won't disregard these accusations . Maybe I know more in 6 month and end up concluding that this was all bullshit. I doubt it, but I still wouldn't regret being strongly against Biden as long as I don't know more.
disclaimer: in terms of politics Biden would be easily one of my favorites when I only consider the more realistic ones.
Seen it happen here in my country. One of the forefronts of women activism in Iceland had made the same statements. Then her celebrity boyfriend got accused of rape and she defended him, completely going back on her own words. I've not heard anything from her since then at looking at her Twitter not many people care about what she has to say.Elizabeth Warren sticking by Biden really sticks in the craw after she was so front and centre of the “believe women” message.
“Believe women. Unless it’s super politically inconvenient.” Doesn’t quite have the same kick.
Did I say that?Yeah its like revan said, if you don't vote for Biden you are voting for trump. It doesn't matter if you are 12 years old or dead or live in another country. Anne frank effectively voted for trump. Theres only two rational options, anne.
probably because they're completely worthless and shouldn't be used for anythingI don't understand why polygraphs aren't par for the course with any candidate. If it's good enough for security clearance it's good enough for a potential president.
Really?probably because they're completely worthless and shouldn't be used for anything
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#EffectivenessReally?
it's especially worthless with cases like this as the victims will almost certainly have some form of anxiety or trauma stemming from the assaultPolygraphs measure arousal, which can be affected by anxiety, anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nervousness, fear, confusion, hypoglycemia, psychosis, depression, substance induced states (nicotine, stimulants), substance withdrawal state (alcohol withdrawal) or other emotions; polygraphs do not measure "lies".[13][23][24] A polygraph cannot differentiate anxiety caused by dishonesty and anxiety caused by something else.[25]
Well I wasn't saying she, the alleged victim, should take one, although she seems to have volunteered. Again, this is used in security clearances here so there is clearly a use, even if it is just a first level test that is then followed up on. Someone in the highest office should have stricter, not lesser, levels of testing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Effectiveness
important bit:
it's especially worthless with cases like this as the victims will almost certainly have some form of anxiety or trauma stemming from the assault
it's also possible to be trained towards "succesful" (in airquotes because there are no good polygraph results) outcomes in these tests
all that's going to happen in that scenario is we exclude people who can't afford polygraph training from office, they are very easy to trickWell I wasn't saying she, the alleged victim, should take one, although she seems to have volunteered. Again, this is used in security clearances here so there is clearly a use, even if it is just a first level test that is then followed up on. Someone in the highest office should have stricter, not lesser, levels of testing.
Surely not for a man with dementia as everyone claims Biden has.all that's going to happen in that scenario is we exclude people who can't afford polygraph training from office, they are very easy to trick
I mean, a person with dementia wouldn't need to trick it, since they wouldn't know what hell was going on anyway.Surely not for a man with dementia as everyone claims Biden has.
I mean, a person with dementia wouldn't need to trick it, since they wouldn't know what hell was going on anyway.
When lying is second nature to you, like for Biden, doing so isn't going to trigger a physiological response that'll be picked up by a polygraph.
A man with dementia wouldn't even remember the events he was being questioned about so would walk any polygraph.Surely not for a man with dementia as everyone claims Biden has.
And in the realm of security clearanceA man with dementia wouldn't even remember the events he was being questioned about so would walk any polygraph.
Trump probably would ace one too, anyone delusional would. As would any psychopath. Lie detectors only belong in the realm of shit reality tv.