Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[tshile]

41 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

 

I would like to know why she was re-tweeting and liking positive messages concerning Joe and his fight on sexual assault in 2016 and 2017 when she had previously been sexually assaulted by him.

because that’s the sort of silliness that happens when someone is the victim of some sort of abuse. 
 

it’s like the me too movement never happened and no one learned a damned thing about any of this

 

(I have no idea if her claims are credible but damn if the responses from some of you are just bewildering. It’s like you all missed the entire me too movement)

13 minutes ago, bearrock said:

What more could we ask for beyond a law enforcement investigation on a 27 year old allegation? (if there are relevant personnel file, I would be happy to see those released).

Didn’t they decline law enforcement investigation into kav?

 

that wasn’t good enough for anyone here. Now it is?

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Serious inquiry: Does it reflect poorly on me if I choose to be a hypocrite in this instance through acknowledging that whatever Joe Biden has or hasnt done, hes still better than Trump? 

 

In the past I would allow my morals to help me manage this and hope by following them I could be and example for others. But in this case those others are ****ing hopeless. 

maybe. Do you spend your time harping on social injustice and things like this?

 

personally for me it’s about consistency. Are you consistent or are you selective in your outrage? Are you honest enough to know and recognize the difference?

 

things only you can answer

 

but it is funny because the talking points have essentially flipped. And for the most part what it really shows is most people don’t care when it’s politically inconvenient for them to care. 
 

there’s a credibility aspect to it all about the claims and that’s fine, but at this stage there’s not a lot. 
 

it’s just interesting how easily some will dismiss this. When it was kav or trump (trump is different as there’s a history of allegations that preceded his campaign) those same people shot down those same arguments when they were made by the other side. 
 

Were you generally accepting of the “better than Hillary” argument from trump supporters? 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

52 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

The back half of the MSNBC lineup is not going to let this Tara Reade/McCabe situation go, Joe needs to address this and I would also like to see Tara Reade put under oath. 

 

I would like to know why she was re-tweeting and liking positive messages concerning Joe and his fight on sexual assault in 2016 and 2017 when she had previously been sexually assaulted by him.  There are about 8 or so tweets in question.

 

And then you have this.

Twitter has 2 options, Like and Retweet. Neither is a confirmation of agreement to the tweet. 
 

People like tweets to save them and refer to them later. 
 

and even if she intended to show that she “liked it” it’s not really out of character for someone suffering abuse to to do something like that. Abused people can’t really be expected and rarely do act rationally or logically. 

[JSSkinz]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

because that’s the sort of silliness that happens when someone is the victim of some sort of abuse. 
 

it’s like the me too movement never happened and no one learned a damned thing about any of this

 

(I have no idea if her claims are credible but damn if the responses from some of you are just bewildering. It’s like you all missed the entire me too movement)

I haven't seen in any previous case where the accuser was on social media not only supporting the accused but supporting them on the very same subject they are now holding them accountable for.

 

Have you seen examples of this? If so please share.

[JSSkinz]

11 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Abused people can’t really be expected and rarely do act rationally or logically. 

She tweeted "Listen to my old boss, he speaks the truth".

 

That was in 2017, years after she tried to report her abuse and was supposedly stonewalled.

 

Are you saying this is typical of those who are sexually abused?

 

If I lined up all the #metoo cases that have come out since the movement took place in 2006 do you think we would find other examples of this?

 

[tshile]

44 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I haven't seen in any previous case where the accuser was on social media not only supporting the accused but supporting them on the very same subject they are now holding them accountable for.

 

Have you seen examples of this? If so please share.

I have not personally seen examples of that

 

we just have a well known, supported by numerous research, fact that people who are abused tend to have some attachment to the person that prevents them from leaving them or stopping the abuse. We see it with domestic and sexual abuse. What you are doing is pushing an argument that’s the equivalent of saying the woman that says her husband beats her is lying because if she was telling the truth she’d just leave her husband. 
 

it’s a bad argument. It’s a known bad argument. 
 

it doesn’t mean she’s credible. It just means your argument as to why she isn’t (this one argument) is a bad one and doesn’t support your supposed claim. 
 

and we absolutely did see this during the me too movement. When men claimed it was consensual using the argument that it happened multiple times and if it wasn’t consensual she wouldn’t have allowed it to happen multiple times. The argument was thoroughly debunked by experts in that field. 
 

I mean Christ we spent like 2 years going through this. It was one of the biggest threads here, a trending social media thing, and in the news almost daily during that time. How do you not know this?

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Serious inquiry: Does it reflect poorly on me if I choose to be a hypocrite in this instance through acknowledging that whatever Joe Biden has or hasnt done, hes still better than Trump? 

 

In the past I would allow my morals to help me manage this and hope by following them I could be and example for others. But in this case those others are ****ing hopeless. 

 

One of the few posters truly consistent on pointing out social injustice issues to the point it didn't matter if he was right or not isn't here anymore.

11 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

I want this issue to die. Like I said, the police opened and closed it.

 

I agree with you. It's not good enough for some people because that's not what they want.

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Didn’t they decline law enforcement investigation into kav?

 

that wasn’t good enough for anyone here. Now it is?

 

Dems asked for FBI background check.  They did it (I guess) thanks to Flake defecting and Senate voted up or down. If someone asks for FBI investigation (I guess feds might have jurisdiction here?), I could see that making sense (cue the call of banana republic).

 

I never supported the version of me too where every allegation must be believed as true.  It must be taken seriously and due investigation must be conducted.  I also think me too movement illuminated why many stay silent for a long time (also why I'm not too impressed by why did she stay silent so long in Biden's context).  But it's bat**** crazy to think every allegation must be believed as true unless proven otherwise.  Take it seriously.  Conduct an investigation.  Whatelse can be done?

 

Now if DC police investigation was a sham, that changes things.  But do we have anything to suggest that?

[Koala]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I have not personally seen examples of that

 

we just have a well known, supported by numerous research, fact that people who are abused tend to have some attachment to the person that prevents them from leaving them or stopping the abuse. We see it with domestic and sexual abuse. What you are doing is pushing an argument that’s the equivalent of saying the woman that says her husband beats her is lying because if she was telling the truth she’d just leave her husband. 
 

it’s a bad argument. It’s a known bad argument. 
 

it doesn’t mean she’s credible. It just means your argument as to why she isn’t (this one argument) is a bad one and doesn’t support your supposed claim. 
 

and we absolutely did see this during the me too movement. When men claimed it was consensual using the argument that it happened multiple times and if it wasn’t consensual she wouldn’t have allowed it to happen multiple times. The argument was thoroughly debunked by experts in that field. 
 

I mean Christ we spent like 2 years going through this. It was one of the biggest threads here, a trending social media thing, and in the news almost daily during that time. How do you not know this?

I hope you dont believe the suggestion that abused people dont think or act logically or rationally.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As matter of fact, I cant count the number of times (during my brief psychiatry rotations) that it wasnt until we uncovered abuse that we were able to see the logic behind otherwise seming strange behavior or illogical decisions.

 

However, at the same time -- and this is the critical mistake people often make -- it is still very important not to reduce that person to the abuse that they suffered.   

 

Why do victims often seem to protect,  lie for, and remain attached to their tormentors?   Remember their tormentor is likely someone who was already close to them.  So theres nothing illogical about that, just a difficult choice thats impossible to understand for those of us likely never to have been put in the terrible situation where someone we love or respect does something monstrous to us.

 

As for Tara, it might seem illogical to you that she didnt immediately remove herself from the situation, or that she later posted something positive about Joe.  But just consider the possibility, that having worked for him, she had come to respect Joe Biden a great deal, before he sexually assaulted her.  Now perhaps you can she would have torn feelings towards Joe, and now her actions dont seem quite so impossibly illogical, do they?

 

Most professionals (psychiatrists) despise the abused people are irrational trope.  Not only because its demeaning, but its just lazy psychiatry.  Peoples thought patterns and behaviors, are almost always logical, as matter of fact, the absence of such is a major distinguishing criteria for schizophrenia.

 

[tshile]

36 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I never supported the version of me too where every allegation must be believed as true.  It must be taken seriously and due investigation must be conducted. 

Agreed. Didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. 
 

Just asking if people are applying the same standards. I think some are. I think some obviously aren’t. 

[Mr. Sinister]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Serious inquiry: Does it reflect poorly on me if I choose to be a hypocrite in this instance through acknowledging that whatever Joe Biden has or hasnt done, hes still better than Trump? 

 

Well, we don't know what he has or hasn't done every moment in his life, theoretically,  so no, excusing "Whatever could come," doesn't make him better than Trump, as a person. I have no problem with people still willing to vote for him over Trump, as President,  if it comes to that.

 

BUT, if one wants to pretend that they judge/assess anything and everything with the same amount of common sense/moral compass, they're already lying to themselves. We're humans, not robots.

 

For me, these particular situations always largely boil down to 1) Are there more women with similar assault allegations? 2) Is the accuser willing to do a polygraph/interview? 3) What is the demeanor of the accused? Are they welcoming to any potential inquiry/investigation? Or is there pushback/condemnation of the accuser?

 

 

I have not heard enough using that criteria, to be moved by any of this (yet).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, Koala said:

I hope you dont believe the suggestion that abused people dont think or act logically or rationally.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As matter of fact, I cant count the number of times (during my brief psychiatry rotations) that it wasnt until we uncovered abuse that we were able to see the logic behind otherwise seming strange behavior or illogical decisions.

 

However, at the same time -- and this is the critical mistake people often make -- it is still very important not to reduce that person to the abuse that they suffered.   

 

Why do victims often seem to protect,  lie for, and remain attached to their tormentors?   Remember their tormentor is likely someone who was already close to them.  So theres nothing illogical about that, just a difficult choice thats impossible to understand for those of us likely never to have been put in the terrible situation where someone we love or respect does something monstrous to us.

 

 

 

 

nothing you’ve said applies to me. You either misread me or quoted the wrong person. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

38 minutes ago, Koala said:

hope you dont believe the suggestion that abused people dont think or act logically or rationally.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As matter of fact, I cant count the number of times (during my brief psychiatry rotations) that it wasnt until we uncovered abuse that we were able to see the logic behind otherwise seming strange behavior or illogical decisions.

I believe this is directed at me and not tshile but that wasn’t exactly what I meant. I meant it doesn’t make sense to sit here and say from our perspective that someone is acting irrationally based on how we believe they should act as a victim. 
 

“well if Biden did it, why would she like a few tweets or think he did a good job speaking about cancer?”

 

we can’t do that to the potential victim because we don’t know what’s going on with them. acting irrational or in a way that doesn’t make sense to us is not an indicator or whether their allegation is credible. 
 

sure, it’s easy to say if Biden raped her she should hate him and never like a tweet of his. That’s simply not reality or how victims operate many times for a whole variety of different reasons 

[PleaseBlitz]

I think people need to let the investigation that the legitimate media is conducting run its course.  

[twa]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think people need to let the investigation that the legitimate media is conducting run its course.  

 

is this legitimate media?

 

Quote

 

A longer version of this article originally ran in CounterPunch on August 23, 2008 under the title “Change,” “Hope” … Why They Must be Talking About Joe Biden! We reprint the story today because it makes clear that the allegations of sexual misconduct against senate staffers has been swirling around Biden for many years, dating back to his first years in the senate. –JSC

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/28/biden-the-lout/

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

is this legitimate media?

 

If you have to ask.....

[JSSkinz]

 

1 hour ago, tshile said:

We see it with domestic and sexual abuse. What you are doing is pushing an argument that’s the equivalent of saying the woman that says her husband beats her is lying because if she was telling the truth she’d just leave her husband. 

She worked for Joe for 10 months and you're comparing a battered wife or girlfriend to what happened? I understand that people become involved and stay in toxic relationships for many reasons but she was fired after 10 months on the job. 

 

Wheres the attachment besides in her head? How is that the same as a wife or girlfriend who feels trapped because the are in an abusive relationship?

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Very healthy discussion in here today.

 

I think a lot of us, no matter our affiliation, are starting to feel some serious ”political metoo” fatigue.  And I think that’s natural...and probably healthy.  But it is frustrating.

 

Our capacity for substantial policy debate gets crowded out by salaciousness.

 

Our politics have always been this way, to a degree.  But #metoo exploded the entertainment industry and that’s prolly led to an unpleasant uptick politically.  

 

Its exhausting.

[visionary]

 

[grego]

21 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

If you have to ask.....

 

the new york times is legit as it comes. but if they are stealth editing their stories at the behest of a political campaign, you are opening yourself up to criticism. 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, grego said:

 

the new york times is legit as it comes. but if they are stealth editing their stories at the behest of a political campaign, you are opening yourself up to criticism. 

 

Are they doing that?

[visionary]

I don't know that I agree with this take.  But I do agree that trying to do the right thing often gets the Dems screwed over by the Republicans, especially now that Trump and co. have set all our norms on fire.  I do think there's something to be said for setting a good example though.  I'm not at all sure how helpful looking at records would be though.  Either way, it would just prolong this, no matter what is found out.  

 

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

She worked for Joe for 10 months and you're comparing a battered wife or girlfriend to what happened?

yes. Because experts in the field have suggested this is way more complicated than non-victims understand it make it out to be. 
 

so yes, I’m going to go with the idea that I shouldn’t judge an alleged abuse victim’s credibility by how they interact with the alleged perpetrator, because that’s what the experts say and I’m not an expert. 
 

if you want to suggest you know more than the experts go ahead. 

[grego]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Are they doing that?

 

yep. dean baquet actually admitted it. "Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct, And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/business/media/joe-biden-tara-reade-new-york-times.html

 

[LadySkinsFan]

To get back to voter suppression and what to do to obviate Republican tactics, I saw this article that may open vote by mail for everyone, not only certain age and segment groups like out of town on election day using the 26th Amendment.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/26th-amendment-texas-absentee-ballots.html

 

The 26^th Amendment is often viewed as a relic of the Vietnam War era, when 18-year-olds protested the fact that they were old enough to be drafted but not to cast a ballot. Ratified in less than 100 days, the amendment enshrined in the Constitution citizens’ right to vote at age 18, knocking down laws that set the voting age at 21. For decades, that guarantee was rarely invoked in court since lawmakers generally honored it. But as today’s voting rights foes exploit a pandemic to disenfranchise Americans, the amendment has newfound importance: It should prevent states from discriminating against younger voters with both subtle and brazen tactics.t

 

The threat of the coronavirus is creating unprecedented demand for absentee ballots; many Republican lawmakers are responding by trying to limit access. There are laws on the books to help them in one regard. Currently, seven states permit only elderly voters to mail in their ballots: Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas grant this privilege to voters 65 and older; Tennessee extends it to those 60 and older; and Kentucky only bestows it upon voters of “advance age.” (None of these states have waived their age limit for the November election, though Indiana and Kentucky did so for their primaries.) Younger people who want to vote by mail must give a reason, such as a serious illness or absence from the state on Election Day. As New York magazine’s Ed Kilgore has noted, these laws effectively limit absentee voting to “Trump-approved groups,” older Americans who are much more likely to vote Republican.

 

On Wednesday, voting rights advocates filed a federal lawsuit against Texas’ restriction. It is likely the first in a spate of challenges to protect the election. Unless the federal judiciary decides to unilaterally rewrite the 26^th Amendment, it will be obligated to invalidate these laws.