Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
"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. If you put to the voters of America if they'd support Joe Biden despite him kissing someone on the back of her head - the answer would be very different from if he'd pinned someone up against a wall and raped her.

Do you really, REALLY not see a difference between that and what Reade is alleging?
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
"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?
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?

these clips are horrific, if you can watch 2:30 in the stewart clip and still actively want to vote for that man you're beyond help

if you can read Flores allegation, and believe it, and still vote for joe, you have no moral authority
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
3,921
Location
Chair
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.
 

Rado_N

Yaaas Broncos!
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
110,905
Location
Manchester
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.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
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.
"Don't vote for bernie because he told me a woman can't win"
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
11,928
Location
Denmark
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?
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
if you can read Flores allegation, and believe it, and still vote for joe, you have no moral authority
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.
What if he slept around in college? What if he cheated on his wife? What if he smoked weed? What if he got a DUI once? What if he once punched an opponent on a basketball court, and got charged with assault? What if one time, when he was really tired and his kids were young, he smacked one of them?

Are 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?

Because tens of millions of people have seen Joe Biden, and cast their votes for him. Hell, plenty will have seen that Jon Stewart clip and done so. Actually, you must kinda hate Jon Stewart - renowned idiot - who will also vote for Biden, despite producing that very video.

Sexual assault is a line. If he did what Reade says, that totally changes the game.

Not one person on here has responded as to how Biden is supposed to answer her allegation, further than what he has done.
 

RedPed

Whatabouter.
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
14,558
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.
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.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
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?
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?
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
What if he slept around in college?
good

What if he cheated on his wife?
disqualifying

What if he smoked weed?
good

What if he got a DUI once?
disqualifying

What if he once punched an opponent on a basketball court, and got charged with assault?
disqualifying

What if one time, when he was really tired and his kids were young, he smacked one of them?
disqualifying


Are 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?
see above old man, see above

feel free to ask more questions that are extremely easy to answer for the majority of us


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?
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?
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
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.
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? Again, the reason they're not doing that is because the investigations to date have not looked good for Reade. For example, she gave the names of 3 staffers that she says she told - at the time - about the assault. All 3 were interviewed - on the record, and said not only do they not remember saying that, but they she never said it to them- obviously if she had they would remember. That's three independent sources that she picked out, none of whom can support her story. Should that not matter at all?
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
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?
Bwahahahaha. Okay - your list of Presidential candidates must be pretty short my friend. And certainly not involved in politics.

Fair enough on the last point - I don't think Joe's gonna be a great President. But he'll be better than the alternative.

From my point of view the best thing that can happen is Warren gets on the ticket, then Joe has a health reason to step down. I don't want a Biden Presidency over a Sanders, or a Warren one. But I also find Reade's case flimsy, and don't want him to be Gary Hart-ed out of this.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
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?
the only thing thoughts experiments reveal is how much the person posing them thinks
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
3,921
Location
Chair
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?
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.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
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.
don't sell them short, joe biden also has a black friend
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
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.
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)
 

PedroMendez

Acolyte
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
9,466
Location
the other Santa Teresa
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?
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.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
Generally I'd be quick to criticise people who would prefer to cast their vote for a candidate who has zero chance of winning rather than casting their vote for the least-worst of the candidates who could have actual impact on the country.

A credible sexual assault accusation against that "least worst" option would definitely see me bail on that position though. If those were the options I was given then I'd prefer not to participate.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
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.
Good post, I think that's what a lot of us are struggling with.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
33,226
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
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.
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.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Whatever the truth of this particular allegation, his habit of snuggling up to women is not only creepiness in disguise, it's also deeply sexist: it implies that women are so lacking in fortitude & competence they can't do without a man's breathy whispers of 'encouragement'. Even if he has no sexual intent in his actions, they are pleasing to him, as they suggest his (supposed) superiority.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,419
Location
London
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.
Did I say that?

Considering that you love keeping a database of my posts, I guess you can quote that.
 
Last edited:

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Effectiveness

important bit:
Polygraphs 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]
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
 

senorgregster

Last Newbie Standing
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
10,343
Location
Anywhere but Liverpool
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
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.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
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.
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
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
3,921
Location
Chair
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.
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
27,358
Surely not for a man with dementia as everyone claims Biden has.
A 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.
 

senorgregster

Last Newbie Standing
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
10,343
Location
Anywhere but Liverpool
A 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.
And in the realm of security clearance