Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 295: Bern After Reade-ing

(+) Yeah! (+)

Xeybozn posted...

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation

I was really hoping this thread wasn't going to become about Tara Reade again, but since it has I might as well ask what everyone thinks about this article.

The lack of consistency between what she said this year and what she said last year is going to be a problem. The fact that her sources changed their stories only after she did looks really bad and is going to be something Biden's defense can continue to point to. It's a legitimate reason to be skeptical, atleast until something bigger comes out, which is very sad if it's true.

EDIT: Also that tweet looks horrendous

---

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/politics/michael-flynn-prosecution/index.html

I guess he doesn't need a pardon.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Do you?

diary
1. a book in which one keeps a daily record of events and experiences.
His calendars were his record of events.

Like, you just dig yourself a hole every time you speak. LMFAO.

even assuming that extremely short notes qualify as "diary entries," if kavanaugh really used his calendars as diaries, he would have written "i saw grease II with michelle," not "seeing grease II with michelle."

yes, a diary is a book in which you keep a daily record of past events. so it's NOT a document in which you occasionally (not necessarily daily) write short notes about things you're going to be doing in the future. that's a calendar. sure, a calendar can also be a record of past events, but that doesn't automatically make it a diary. if i made a post last week on this board about how i went to the store, that's also a record of a past event, but that doesn't mean this message board is my diary.

i love how i literally have to explain the difference between a diary and a calendar to you and you're accusing me of "digging myself in a hole every time i speak" and you're "laughing your fucking ass off" about my posts. you're a dipshit.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

even assuming that extremely short notes qualify as "diary entries," if kavanaugh really used his calendars as diaries, he would have written "i saw grease II with michelle," not "seeing grease II with michelle."

yes, a diary is a book in which you keep a daily record of past events. so it's NOT a document in which you occasionally (not necessarily daily) write short notes about things you're going to be doing in the future. that's a calendar. sure, a calendar can also be a record of past events, but that doesn't automatically make it a diary. if i made a post last week on this board about how i went to the store, that's also a record of a past event, but that doesn't mean this message board is my diary.

i love how i literally have to explain the difference between a diary and a calendar to you and you're accusing me of "digging myself in a hole every time i speak" and you're "laughing your fucking ass off" about my posts. you're a dipshit.

"Sure, Lasa".

At some point you are just going to realize that you just are always wrong and have a "if someone doesn't fit what I think they are INSANE or a DIPSHIT" attitude.

Yes, you just routinely dig yourself a hole with your misguided comments. It's pretty well documented at this point.

PS: A Calendar is

calendar
[kalndr]

NOUN

1. a chart or series of pages showing the days, weeks, and months of a particular year, or giving particular seasonal information.

Since you seem super confused on what a Calendar is also.

---

Oh wow the Shelly Luther case blew up so hard the Texas supreme court got involved, the governer and luitenant governor got involved, all in a day. That's impressive.

If unfamiliar, she was jailed in Dallas for opening up her salon. Technically was jailed for being in violation of a court order telling her to stay closed, meaning contempt of court, but generally everyone sees it as jailed for opening up shop in lockdown.

Glad they reversed it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

"Sure, Lasa".

At some point you are just going to realize that you just are always wrong and have a "if someone doesn't fit what I think they are INSANE or a DIPSHIT" attitude.

Yes, you just routinely dig yourself a hole with your misguided comments. It's pretty well documented at this point.

PS: A Calendar is

calendar
[kalndr]

NOUN
1. a chart or series of pages showing the days, weeks, and months of a particular year, or giving particular seasonal information.

Since you seem super confused on what a Calendar is also.

fuck off

---

I heard they dropped the case once it made the news earlier. Surprised they got all that involved. And, it arguably made her a millionaire. I heard she was up around 500k or so in a gofundme or something people made for her. I wish people would gofundme just 100k. It would solve all my problems. = (

---

Wanglicious posted...

i didn't, no. they do something high profile before i'd have known?

Very surprised you havent at least heard of Jacob I overheard in a hipster coffee shop... Wohl
---

StealThisSheen posted...

The lack of consistency between what she said this year and what she said last year is going to be a problem. The fact that her sources changed their stories only after she did looks really bad and is going to be something Biden's defense can continue to point to. It's a legitimate reason to be skeptical, atleast until something bigger comes out, which is very sad if it's true.

EDIT: Also that tweet looks horrendous

Its legitimately the nightmare scenario for Dems because there is no action that will be welcomed by enough the party to keep it from completely fracturing. Tara Reade's accusation is not strong enough to unify them against Biden and if Biden was forced to step down for Sanders it would leave a large portion of the voter base believing he was forced out by a Sanders' operative.

Basically its gonna linger like a diseased nail until one of the two parties comes out with concrete evidence.

---

Also guarantee you if it was a white judge and a black woman Fox News and the Texas SC wouldn't give a shit.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

if Biden was forced to step down for Sanders

Why would Sanders get the nom if Biden steps down? I don't see why Biden's delegates would vote for him, especially since the biggest factor in Biden's win was "not being Sanders".

Legit curious if I'm missing something here, because most of the people I see calling for Biden to step down seem to be Sanders supporters.
---

I'm describing the idealized version for Sanders supporters. They largely think that Biden stepping down means Bernie (being second in delegates) should be the winner. The reality is that Biden stepping down throws things into such chaos that there's really no way to produce a successful Democratic nominee. Give it to Bernie, then a sizable portion of Biden voters would be pissed on multiple levels (don't want a socialist, don't think Bernie is a real Dem, think Bernie only got the nomination due to a Sanders supporter lying about Biden, etc.).

I can't help but think all of this would have been avoided if Elizabeth Warren had been the nominee.

---

Sanders replacing Biden is a pipe dream, the nation isn't good enough for that.

Unfortunately the Democrats are basically just fucked no mater what they do at this point. There is no way to go into this election with enthusiastic support from the party under any circumstance.

What does help is that generic Dem support is very strong again, matching 2018 levels.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I heard they dropped the case once it made the news earlier. Surprised they got all that involved. And, it arguably made her a millionaire. I heard she was up around 500k or so in a gofundme or something people made for her. I wish people would gofundme just 100k. It would solve all my problems. = (

yeah, she's walking away from this with a ton of support and money.
it was the Texas Supreme Court that did the release, basically telling the rest of the courts to not jail anyone for contempt of court like this. the ruling itself was pretty awful, literally asking to apologize to government officials, telling her that she should've gotten a lawyer, and just talking down to her the entire time like she's nothing. fuck that. didn't need a lawyer, just needed a national outrage.

---

How much reason is there to believe people won't just vote Biden anyways? Has his polling performance dropped at all?
---

pyresword posted...

How much reason is there to believe people won't just vote Biden anyways? Has his polling performance dropped at all?

Nope, afaik if anything it's gone up (which probably has more to do with Trump being a colossal fuckup during a pandemic than anything about Biden).

---

Biden is polling within the margin of error in Montana, a state Trump carried by 21 points in 2016.

He's polling pretty strongly.

---

biden might well be untouchable for a significant portion of the party who are single issue "not trump" here.
he could finger a girl on 5th ave and people would still vote for him.


---

TheRock1525 posted...

I can't help but think all of this would have been avoided if Elizabeth Warren had been the nominee.

Has Elizabeth Warren ever polled well against Trump?

That being said, Biden supporters have backed themselves into an untenable corner.

Many have literally said I believe Tara Reade or dont care if its true, its still better than Trump.

So if the 1 in a million case happens where Joe steps down and its Bernie, changing their minds means theyd literally rather have a rapist than Democratic Socialist.

frankly, ir means that if Bernie loses because those people dont show, the Bernie left never supports the Dems ever again, and the Democratic Party loses millions of voters.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

frankly, ir means that if Bernie loses because those people dont show, the Bernie left never supports the Dems ever again, and the Democratic Party loses millions of voters.

Why is it okay for Bernie supporters to be upset with this, but it's not okay for Biden supporters to be upset with Bernie supporters saying they aren't gonna vote?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Why is it okay for Bernie supporters to be upset with this, but it's not okay for Biden supporters to be upset with Bernie supporters saying they aren't gonna vote?

Show me where I said this?


---

Another side issue: while Reade's allegation does fit the legal definition of rape, when literally anyone hears the word "rapist" they would associate it with far worse behavior than is being alleged (and, to be clear, the alleged assault is still very bad!).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Another side issue: while Reade's allegation does fit the legal definition of rape, when literally anyone hears the word "rapist" they would associate it with far worse behavior than is being alleged (and, to be clear, the alleged assault is still very bad!).

For the record, this is literally what people were saying to defend Brock Turner

---

Yeah, what the FUCK, LotM.

---

LordJustTheTipon

---

Hopefully Trump wins in a landslide and the Democrats can rethink their role in society.

---

I think it says more about you that you think the Biden allegations are similar to what Turner did.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Another side issue: while Reade's allegation does fit the legal definition of rape, when literally anyone hears the word "rapist" they would associate it with far worse behavior than is being alleged (and, to be clear, the alleged assault is still very bad!).

When "well yeah this thing (that I totally swear I totally do not think is true even though I am defending it) is rape but it's like mini-rape man, I mean it's very bad but it's not like real bad bad" is your line of thought there might be something wrong

---

LOTM, please stop. You realize that Brock Turner's action were not legally rape under California law at the time, which is why he wasn't convicted of it and why the law was thereafter changed?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think it says more about you that you think the Biden allegations are similar to what Turner did.

Its not about similarities.

When you do any form of sexual penetration without consent, it is by definition and legally rape.

---

Panthera posted...

When "well yeah this thing (that I totally swear I totally do not think is true even though I am defending it) is rape but it's like mini-rape man, I mean it's very bad but it's not like real bad bad" is your line of thought there might be something wrong

I'm making two separate points

1. There are a ton of reasons to doubt her story, though there is certainly no way to know for certain
2. I am emphatically not saying (as I made explicitly clear in the post you're quoting) that what Reade alleges is not extremely bad. What I am saying is that it is closer to being assault without penetration (which would be sexual assault, not rape) than what people normally understand rape to be. Do people disagree with me that the latter would be considerably worse? Again, for the third time, with the understanding that both are extremely bad.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm making two separate points

1. There are a ton of reasons to doubt her story, though there is certainly no way to know for certain
2. I am emphatically not saying (as I made explicitly clear in the post you're quoting) that what Reade alleges is not extremely bad. What I am saying is that it is closer to being assault without penetration (which would be sexual assault, not rape) than what people normally understand rape to be. Do people disagree with me that the latter would be considerably worse? Again, for the third time, with the understanding that both are extremely bad.

I thought she was alleging penetration.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I thought she was alleging penetration.

Yes, she alleged digital penetration, which makes it fit the legal definition of rape.

---

If both are extremely bad, then why are you trying to differentiate?

This is like those old semantic arguments during the Roy Moore days about ephebophilia. Like...why are you arguing this? It's fucking BAD, what he's accused of.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I am emphatically not saying (as I made explicitly clear in the post you're quoting) that what Reade alleges is not extremely bad. What I am saying is that it is closer to being assault without penetration (which would be sexual assault, not rape) than what people normally understand rape to be. Do people disagree with me that the latter would be considerably worse? Again, for the third time, with the understanding that both are extremely bad.

You are doing the thing people do when some famous dude is accused of rape and someone comes in to post "you guys know women lie about this stuff right" and then he denies that he's saying anything about the specific case in question even though there's no point to have said it besides to try to deflect and downplay it. You saw people expressing more suspicion in Biden than you like and just felt like you needed to bring up a barely relevant point that no one is debating that had no purpose in being raised besides to try to downplay the whole thing

---

Biden's response leaves much to be desired too. If he's innocent why not say so immediately? Why not attack his accuser as a liar? File suit against her for defamation of character? Could it be because he knows she's telling the truth?

I mean if you're going to find "inconsistencies" in Tara Reade's statements it's only fair to apply the same standard to Joe Biden.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yes, she alleged digital penetration, which makes it fit the legal definition of rape.

So how on earth is penetration more similar to not penetration than it is to penetration?

---

Inviso posted...

If both are extremely bad, then why are you trying to differentiate?

This is like those old semantic arguments during the Roy Moore days about ephebophilia. Like...why are you arguing this? It's fucking BAD, what he's accused of.

The reason I'm trying to differentiate is that when people call Biden a rapist, people understand that to mean something very different than what was actually alleged. Using your line of reasoning, is there no purpose in distinguishing between like physical assault and attempted murder?

---

I think people are quite clear on what Biden has been accused of. He's no worse than Harvey Weinstein.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Biden's response leaves much to be desired too. If he's innocent why not say so immediately? Why not attack his accuser as a liar? File suit against her for defamation of character? Could it be because he knows she's telling the truth?

I mean if you're going to find "inconsistencies" in Tara Reade's statements it's only fair to apply the same standard to Joe Biden.

Or because he's not an asshole and, if it IS false, he still wants to come across as respectful towards women, rather than coming across as a screaming manchild like Trump.

---

Panthera posted...

You are doing the thing people do when some famous dude is accused of rape and someone comes in to post "you guys know women lie about this stuff right" and then he denies that he's saying anything about the specific case in question even though there's no point to have said it besides to try to deflect and downplay it. You saw people expressing more suspicion in Biden than you like and just felt like you needed to bring up a barely relevant point that no one is debating that had no purpose in being raised besides to try to downplay the whole thing

I brought it up because Tony used the word "rapist" to describe Biden.

red sox 777 posted...

So how on earth is penetration more similar to not penetration than it is to penetration?

The "badness" of the two is closer.

---

But he is a rapist. He is literally a rapist.

---

personally i get what you're saying there - it's rape but it's not rape; there's penetration but it's not with his dick. there's a certain underlying aspect that, when we think of that word, presumes a more vile action took place.

but know that this is also a defense that helps people get away with it. classic example there would be the idea that rape must either have the victim incapacitated or involve other methods of violence to it; if she doesn't have two black eyes or a broken leg, she must've consented somewhat so it's okay. here you'd say that sure he penetrated but it's a small penetration so it's not really the same thing. the defense is the same.

like yes, there's a scale. and technically in law there is also a legal scale too, rape you'll find in 3-4 degrees usually. but if you're gonna talk about a scale, be really careful to make sure you aren't using it as a defense of the act and are just bringing it up as social commentary on an indefensible act.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The reason I'm trying to differentiate is that when people call Biden a rapist, people understand that to mean something very different than what was actually alleged. Using your line of reasoning, is there no purpose in distinguishing between like physical assault and attempted murder?

if somebody physically assaulted somebody and didn't try to kill them their crime should be considered physical assault

if somebody tried to commit murder their crime should be considered attempted murder

if somebody sexually assaulted somebody and did not rape them their crime should be considered sexual assault

if somebody raped somebody their crime should be considered rape

if the allegations are true, by your own admission, biden raped her. his crime should be considered rape

I get what you're trying to say, but this is an extraordinarily bad argument

---

LotM you are not helping the narrative that you would want Biden to step on you.

NFUN posted...

if somebody physically assaulted somebody and didn't try to kill them their crime should be considered physical assault

if somebody tried to commit murder their crime should be considered attempted murder

if somebody sexually assaulted somebody and did not rape them their crime should be considered sexual assault

if somebody raped somebody their crime should be considered rape

if the allegations are true, by your own admission, biden raped her. his crime should be considered rape

I get what you're trying to say, but this is an extraordinarily bad argument

I am not saying that (if the allegations are true) Biden would not be a rapist. I'm saying there's a very wide range of behavior that is described by the term, and that what anyone thinks of when they hear "rape" is not this. Perhaps "digital rapist" would be a better term to use?

My main point is that the term does not accurately communicate what is alleged. Like, I would guess that a nonnegligible fraction of people who have heard about this think that the allegation is that Biden committed "standard" rape.

---

LotM, dude

Just stop

---

LOTM, please stop. Everyone understands what Biden is accused of. No one is imagining something different.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

My main point is that the term does not accurately communicate what is alleged. Like, I would guess that a nonnegligible fraction of people who have heard about this think that the allegation is that Biden committed "standard" rape.

honestly, it's just a really, really difficult argument to thread without setting bells off and you're just asking for people who were already somewhat hostile to become really hostile when you're going down this road. and this is despite the fact that, based on what we've seen of you in here and the difficulty of the subject, i think most should be able to get what you're saying and that you're not being a bad guy as much as struggling to get what you mean across.

(i'll still totally make jokes on it because goddamn, that ain't the tip she was asking for.)

and sure, i get that effectively you're saying that on a scale of sexual assault to penetration with his dick, this falls closer to the former. going by the general claim Reade's made and presuming it was true, if he had "just" pushed her against the wall, started kissing her, groping her, but stopped there, that's sexual assault. while he crossed the line by also penetrating her with his fingers and it turned to rape, it is closer to the aforementioned assault as opposed to her being, say, bent over in an alley.

true, fair, but also a really fucking hard position to followup on because it's like... alright, so what's the end goal here. that the language is a lot harsher despite being accurate? that it's technically true but not as bad as it sounds?

---