Will Biden be the next President? (Pros and Cons)

Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
edited April 28 in Purgatory
As I have said elsewhere, I have reservations about Biden.

First, there, are the rape allegations. They are usually pretty damnable for any male politician. For me, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Given this environment too, I have to ask what is the alternative?

Another issue I have is the age issue. He is not even a Baby Boomer. Why is it Americans seems to be favoring old people? I certainly would have preferred someone younger than me (and I am 70). I was hoping a Gen X would have risen to the top; but, nope, it did not happen.

He has promised to nominate a female vice president candidate. I am thinking it might be a black female candidate. It certainly would raise his cred within the black community.

I know several people on other threads are saying we will have another four years of the current guy. Maybe we can discuss this too.

Like it, or not, I see no other viable option. I am hoping his choice of a female VP will help launch her into winning the next election since I do not see Biden running for a second term.

«1345

Comments

  • Innocent until proven guilty, to me, is a matter for the courts. I'm inclined to believe women when they say what has happened to them unless there is a really good reason not to.

    That said, the choice facing American voters is:
    Probable rapist who has also done some good, knows how to run the country et al
    or
    Probable rapist who is also racist, incompetent, and has the deaths of tens of thousands of his own citizens on his head and just suggested injecting bleach

    It *is* a case of the lesser of two evils. If I was a US citizen I would be sick to the stomach at the thought of putting a rapist in office, but I'd still vote for Biden if it meant putting an end to Trump's misrule.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    As I have said elsewhere, I have reservations about Biden.

    First, there, are the rape allegations. They are usually pretty damnable for any male politician. For me, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Given this environment too, I have to ask what is the alternative?

    I'm no Joe Biden fan - but on this score he's certainly no worse than the orange guy. And I think that regardless of his past behaviour, his current and future actions will be better for women than the current incumbent.
    Like it, or not, I see no other viable option. I am hoping his choice of a female VP will help launch her into winning the next election since I do not see Biden running for a second term.

    Joe Biden will be the Democratic candidate. That ship has sailed already. My guess at the moment is that he'll pick Amy Klobuchar as VP. I'd prefer Kamala Harris, but I think she's quite a lot less likely.

    My rationale - Biden has a genuine warmth, friendliness, and trust with Obama, and I think he's looking for similar support from his running mate. And I think she thinks more like Biden than Harris does.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Another issue I have is the age issue
    Because old people vote more than young people. Because Biden hasgreater name recognition and that, in a psychological sense, imbues him with more worth. Biden has a track record and is seen as the safe choice.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I should clarify my statement. To my knowledge, there is only one woman that has come forward to accuse Biden of rape and several people have corroborated her allegation. On the other hand, there are also other people who say they never heard the woman claim she was raped--yes, harassed, until now.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I read that although a criminal complaint has been made, it was "for safety reasons" (whatever that may mean) and the nature of the alleged offence places it outside the statute of limitations. Here is the quote from the BBC article.
    Ms Reade filed a criminal complaint on 9 April 2020 with police, saying she was a victim of sexual assault but did not name Mr Biden.

    She said in a tweet that she filed the complaint "for safety reasons only", as the statute of limitations for her claim have expired and she had begun to receive online threats.

    The alleged offence took place in 1993.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I should clarify my statement. To my knowledge, there is only one woman that has come forward to accuse Biden of rape and several people have corroborated her allegation. On the other hand, there are also other people who say they never heard the woman claim she was raped--yes, harassed, until now.
    The accusation that the former staffer has made is an accusation of sexual assault, not of rape. They are not the same thing.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Given that the choice is between Mr Biden and Mr Orange-Wonderbrain, whatever the reservations, there should be no competition.

    Mind, they're both too old and so was Sanders, but then it's not my country and possibly I shouldn't be commenting.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Biden has issues, but the Man in the Moon would be better than the current occupant of the White House. At least Biden will surround himself with competent, dedicated staff, cabinet and aides . . . won't he?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I can see Biden being an older but more thinking version of LBJ. He knows the way to get things done, what the rules are and so forth.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    Anyone but Trump. But maybe can we draft Cuomo?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    But maybe can we draft Cuomo?
    Sure, if we want to shoot ourselves in the foot. The last thing the Democrats need now, after a primary process with 20+ candidates, is to start trying to find yet another candidate.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    hear hear. Unity. The die it is cast, the curse it is cursed.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    hear hear. Unity. The die it is cast, the curse it is cursed.

    A real problem at the last election for the Democrats was that they were disunited - Sanders did not bow out very gracefully and not enough of his followers made it to the booths on election day.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Michelle Goldberg had a thoughtful op-ed piece in the NYT on the Biden allegations recently. I have never been a fan of "I believe the woman," any more than I would be of "I believe the man." When I don't know the facts, I try to limit my opinions. When I don't know the facts and I have strong opinions of the people involved, that policy gets harder to follow.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    good article.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I should clarify my statement. To my knowledge, there is only one woman that has come forward to accuse Biden of rape and several people have corroborated her allegation. On the other hand, there are also other people who say they never heard the woman claim she was raped--yes, harassed, until now.
    The accusation that the former staffer has made is an accusation of sexual assault, not of rape. They are not the same thing.

    In law, possibly, depending on location. The law often makes narrow distinctions that have little to do with normal usage.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    To digitally penetrate anyone is considered rape. However, it can be reduced to sexual assault. Reade is very explicit in saying Biden raped her, and she has people that will back her up. On the other hand, Biden also has people on his side that say they were not aware of it at the time.

    The deal of it is, too, since the incident happened in 1993, the statute of limitations has expired. She cannot bring charges against him. She did file a complaint for "safety reasons," though no one knows what this means. I am thinking it is similar to a no-contact disorder.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Sorry for the double post. Time was running out on the previous one. Here is an article(RealClearPolitics) that notes the difference in coverage between the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh and Joe Biden. Even Fox News has toned down Reade's accusation against Joe.
  • edited April 29
    So the American choice for president in the more jaded terms is between a reasonably intelligent sex assaulter who probably is intelligent enough to have mended his ways, and probably tells the truth 80 or 90% of the time, or a ignorant and misinformed sex assaulter who is intelligent enough to manipulate and bully everyone, will not mend his ways, and lies even when there's not reason to. I always liked the saying that we should never explain something bad by attributing it to evil when stupidity will explain it. In the case of the current guy you'd got evil stupidity. So the thing that must be done, from this outsider's perspective, is to stop talking in ways that allow trumpets to make any mileage at all. Promote him. because the other guy is the devil.

    They may be both shits, but one of them smells much worse than the other. Such that I cannot for the life of me understand how it is even a debate. You get either the guy you have or the other old guy. You cannot do worse if your choice is the guy you currently have.

    As for age, it would be better that the person is neither a Boomer nor the prior generation, but a Gen-X or frankly preferably a senior Millennial. I'm serious about that. Almost serious with the following: your last election (and the one in Canada) suggests to me that voting should start at perhaps 16 years of age, and we should not allow anyone over 60 or 55 to vote any more.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    NoProphet concludes:
    we should not allow anyone over 60 or 55 to vote any more.

    Maybe the better idea would be to impose a statute of limitations on the age of a candidate. When the US Constitution was written, the average life expectance of a white male was 38, but if a person got to 60 they had a good chance of seeing 75. Now, the US life expectancy is around 78 (though the Covid epidemic may impact that.

    I admit I am an old bird, but you will have to take my right to vote from my cold dead hands.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    To digitally penetrate anyone is considered rape.
    Perhaps in the state where you live, but that is simply not true across the board. In the jurisdiction where I live (and, I think, in many other jurisdictions), only penile penetration of the vagina without consent is rape. Digital penetration without consent is sexual assault, not rape, and cannot be charged as rape.

    It appears from the RAINN website, that aside from statutory rape, there is no separate crime denominated as “rape,” in the District of Columbia, and that all forms of non-consensual sex acts are termed “sexual abuse.”

    What Reade has claimed, at least as described in every report that I’ve seen, is that Biden sexually assaulted her, and it’s best to describe it as she and law enforcement officials in that jurisdiction describe it rather than by importing definitions that might apply elsewhere but that very well might not apply where the alleged crime occurred.

  • The colloquial language used to describe experiences is not that used in court and I don't really see why it should be. If it's sex and done without consent then it's rape, regardless of what the law says.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Because in many places, the colloquial meaning of “rape” is non-consensual penis-in-vagina, or maybe anus, sexual intercourse, while it’s the language of statute and courtroom that have, in some places, expanded the meaning to other non-consensual sex acts.

    Which is why, I’d posit, that despite looking (though I certainly may have missed something), I’ve been unable to find any news report, regardless of the leanings of the news outlet, that describes the accusations against Biden as “rape”—because the colloquial meaning of that word doesn’t fit the allegations.

  • I had rather have a candidate who is not accused of any sort of sexual assault, but that's not where we are. At this point it's a choice between two. (There is no non-near-miraculous way of rewinding so we can get another candidate at this point.) And when that happens, we are obliged to choose our president based on other criteria--such as "how much more is he likely to fuck up this country and the world." And I think there's no doubt of the answer on that one.

    Should it be this way? No.

    Is it this way? Yes.
  • I had rather have a candidate who is not accused of any sort of sexual assault, but that's not where we are. At this point it's a choice between two. (There is no non-near-miraculous way of rewinding so we can get another candidate at this point.)

    Well there is.... the Democratic establishment could do what they did to Al Franken and hand Biden the metaphorical pearl-handled revolver and bottle of scotch. They've not had the convention yet and could still choose another candidate. What troubles me is that they won't because they'd rather have a centrist rapist than Bernie Sanders.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Almost serious with the following: your last election (and the one in Canada) suggests to me that voting should start at perhaps 16 years of age, and we should not allow anyone over 60 or 55 to vote any more.
    Thanks a bunch! :angry: I'm too old by your standards -- but my candidate of choice was the youngest of all of the ones running. (And had he been elected he would have been the youngest POTUS ever, IIRC.)

    I do agree, however, on an upper age limit for the candidates.

  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    I had rather have a candidate who is not accused of any sort of sexual assault, but that's not where we are.
    But this gives way too much power to political adversaries. In our highly-partisan environment, simply becoming a candidate for high office is enough to insure that you will be tarred by some sort of accusation. Disqualifying on that basis just assures that the tarring will accelerate. I am not saying that this is the case with Biden -- I do not know the truth of that matter. But neither do those who would have him disqualified on the grounds that being accused is the same thing as being guilty. It is perfectly acceptable to decide that you don't want to support Biden, but it is not OK to conflated fact and allegation. Or so ISTM.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Arethosemyfeet

    You don't know Biden is guilty of what he is accused of. As tclune says, being accused is not the same as being guilty.

    Calling him a centrist rapist is accurate about centrist. Rapist is definitely jumping the gun.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Arethosemyfeet

    You don't know Biden is guilty of what he is accused of. As tclune says, being accused is not the same as being guilty.

    Calling him a centrist rapist is accurate about centrist. Rapist is definitely jumping the gun.

    I believe his accuser. There is no good reason not to. But in any case even if the Dem high command believed it had happened (and I imagine they do) I suspect they still wouldn't ditch him.
  • NP - I believe that you and I are about the same age. We're within spitting distance of your 55/60 proposed loss of the franchise. Are you going to ban yourself voluntarily from the ballot box, just to have the courage of your convictions? Inquiring minds....
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Well, I'm with tclune. When I don't know the facts I limit my opinions. Trial by media is pretty obnoxious. Either way.
  • NP - I believe that you and I are about the same age. We're within spitting distance of your 55/60 proposed loss of the franchise. Are you going to ban yourself voluntarily from the ballot box, just to have the courage of your convictions? Inquiring minds....
    I must be a little older than you** I miss both the 55 and 60 cut offs for voting in my formula. I also miss my long blond curly hair, which is sadly thin on the top and decidedly grey, and cannot be credibly french braided as it was 45 years ago.


    ** By the age calculated by my birth. not my developmental age. Which is very juvenile and is likely to stay there. B)
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw once: "I may be getting older . . . but I refuse to grow up!"
  • tclune wrote: »
    I had rather have a candidate who is not accused of any sort of sexual assault, but that's not where we are.
    But this gives way too much power to political adversaries. In our highly-partisan environment, simply becoming a candidate for high office is enough to insure that you will be tarred by some sort of accusation. Disqualifying on that basis just assures that the tarring will accelerate. I am not saying that this is the case with Biden -- I do not know the truth of that matter. But neither do those who would have him disqualified on the grounds that being accused is the same thing as being guilty. It is perfectly acceptable to decide that you don't want to support Biden, but it is not OK to conflated fact and allegation. Or so ISTM.

    Huh? I didn't do so. I said I would prefer a candidate not living in the gray area of "Did this happen, or not?" But as you point out, the weirdos come out of the woodwork when one runs for high office--and also the truth-tellers. Knowing the difference is a bitch sometimes.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited April 29
    Lamb Chopped

    We really don't need to know. Refusing to have an opinion when we don't have a sound basis for one is perfectly reasonable

    We can make our choices on bases we can be more sure about. And we can end up regretting those choices as more information emerges. But that's just the way it is.
  • Why are you reading me as saying that I need to know? I would prefer to know--but who wouldn't? That's not the world we live in. I think, in fact, that we agree together--so I'm not sure why you are phrasing it as if we were in conflict.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I wasn't. I hoped we were on the same page. I just wasn't sure.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    We really don't need to know. Refusing to have an opinion when we don't have a sound basis for one is perfectly reasonable

    We can make our choices on bases we can be more sure about. And we can end up regretting those choices as more information emerges. But that's just the way it is.
    It isn't quite the way it is. Sexual misconduct can be a difficult thing to prove. So many abusers get away with doing it because people wait for a "sound basis".
    In Biden's case there is not yet, and may never be, a pattern of this level of abuse. So, in this case, waiting for a sound basis is the more reasonable thing. But often abuse continues through the wait.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    lilBuddha

    So far as I understand it, the criminal complaint cannot lead to a court trial. Does the fact of the allegation produce a greater presumption in favour of guilt because there cannot be a trial? Or provide a basis for trial by media?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Arethosemyfeet

    You don't know Biden is guilty of what he is accused of. As tclune says, being accused is not the same as being guilty.

    Calling him a centrist rapist is accurate about centrist. Rapist is definitely jumping the gun.

    I believe his accuser. There is no good reason not to. But in any case even if the Dem high command believed it had happened (and I imagine they do) I suspect they still wouldn't ditch him.

    Were Biden to give a press conference and deny committing the act alleged, would you similarly say that you had no good reason to not believe him?

    I'm surprised at the time limit on bringing charges. Where I am, there are time limits on bringing civil actions for damages and some power for a court to extend some of those. Then, there are time limits for really minor offences, such things as parking contrary to a sign and so forth. But in general, no time limit for more serious ones such as sexual offences. Of course a court may order that a prosecution be stayed in a proper case - eg the death of witnesses to corroborate one or other of the cases - but there are recent cases against clergy and schoolteachers where the offence alleged occurred 40 or more years ago. Indeed, the offences alleged against Cardinal Pell occurred over 20 years ago.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Arethosemyfeet

    You don't know Biden is guilty of what he is accused of. As tclune says, being accused is not the same as being guilty.

    Calling him a centrist rapist is accurate about centrist. Rapist is definitely jumping the gun.

    I believe his accuser. There is no good reason not to. But in any case even if the Dem high command believed it had happened (and I imagine they do) I suspect they still wouldn't ditch him.

    Were Biden to give a press conference and deny committing the act alleged, would you similarly say that you had no good reason to not believe him?

    I'm surprised at the time limit on bringing charges. Where I am, there are time limits on bringing civil actions for damages and some power for a court to extend some of those. Then, there are time limits for really minor offences, such things as parking contrary to a sign and so forth. But in general, no time limit for more serious ones such as sexual offences. Of course a court may order that a prosecution be stayed in a proper case - eg the death of witnesses to corroborate one or other of the cases - but there are recent cases against clergy and schoolteachers where the offence alleged occurred 40 or more years ago. Indeed, the offences alleged against Cardinal Pell occurred over 20 years ago.

    I have been watching The Innocence Files on Netflix. One of the points they have made in a number of cases is that time corrupts memory. I cannot say Reade's memory of the event has changed, but there could be that possibility in other cases. That is why they have statute of limitation laws. Now if there where other women who come out and repeat similar stories, then I think the Democratic party would have a definite problem on its hands.

    Cardinal Pell has now been acquited of the charges against him, as I recall.

    In the case of American clergy going to jail for something that happened 40 years ago, I cannot recall any of them. More recent ones, yes definitely, but the victims still can bring civil charges against their accusers and the denomination they were members of.
    -
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    lilBuddha

    So far as I understand it, the criminal complaint cannot lead to a court trial. Does the fact of the allegation produce a greater presumption in favour of guilt because there cannot be a trial? Or provide a basis for trial by media?
    No. we cannot know the accuracy of the complaint. The trial issue is irrelevant to whether he did it or not. Trial by media is not a great thing, but a public accusation is all a victim has after so much time. Would you deny victims that?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I'm not a grumpy old man and I think 16 is too damn young. Putting it to 21 might be reasonable from a neurological POV, but it would further discourage the young from voting.

    The main reason the Twenty-Sixth Amendment set the voting age at 18 years was the contradiction between trusting an 18 year old with lethal weapons and sending him to fight in Vietnam but not trusting his judgement with a vote on things like whether the U.S. should be fighting in Vietnam in the first place. By my reckoning if an 18 year old has enough judgement to be making on-the-ground foreign policy decisions on behalf of the U.S. in foreign war zones (and American troops make de facto foreign policy decisions whenever they're sent to foreign war zones) then it seems a little hypocritical to say they can't be trusted to have a say in choosing the Congress that sent them there in the first place.

    As far as the Tara Reade issue goes, blogger Paul Campos has a decent run-down of the credibility issues involved. I'd summarize, but the post is brief enough that it seems unnecessary.
  • Statutory limits on prosecution are there in part because witnesses die or become incapable--and that includes witnesses for the defense. Allow prosecution say, 60 years after an offense, and the one key witness who can effectively clear someone may well be dead--and the case turns into X said, Y said, and the person ends up under a permanent cloud even if acquitted. (Not that this doesn't happen even in cases brought to court the same year, but the longer you wait, the more likely the problem is, and the law is intentionally slanted in the direction of "innocent until proven guilty.")
    AFAIK each state sets its own limits on how long a particular crime remains prosecutable, and may change those limits, as some have done recently regarding child abuse. Generally the more heinous the crime, the longer the period in which it may be prosecuted. Some crimes never become unprosecutable. There are also federal crimes, which come under a set of rules of their own. So trying to reform the whole statutory limits system is likely to be a hopeless case, unless you can pull off a new Constitutional amendment (not easy). Most people just try to tinker with their local laws, not completely change them.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I'd like to put the last part of Croesos' link above to @Arethosemyfeet and ask why the matters raised are not ggod reasons to disbelieve Biden's accuser on the digital penetration allegation:
    If you want to assess the veracity of an accusation that stems from a single person, then you have to examine the credibility and integrity of the person generally, as well as the history of their relationship with the accused. You can’t legitimately say that’s off limits but meanwhile I choose to believe the unexamined accusation.In this case, the latter undermines the credibility of Reade’s claim. Until very recently, she publicly and repeatedly praised Biden – including praising him for his work on behalf of women’s rights, and endorsing his integrity. There’s also the fact that Reade has given multiple, contradictory accounts of how and why she left the job in Biden’s office. For all we know, none of them may be true; in any case, they show that she freely adapts and remakes her history of herself to suit the audience/occasion.The former, the question of her general credibility, makes Reade’s accusation seem even less solid. For example, her well documented and gnarly record of fluffing Vladimir Putin, denying Putin’s crimes, and gushing over his manliness doesn’t just make her look like a flake. She has also tangled herself into knots denying ever having said or done things wrt Putin that we can prove she is lying about. Likewise, her chronology of her own evolution in thinking about Putin is contradicted by the evidence. So we know she’s worse than a flake; she’s also an outright fake when it suits her.The record of her work for a small non-profit horse rescue in CA (“Pregnant Mare Rescue”) is particularly disturbing. The people who worked with her there described her as a liar, a crook, a con artist, and a highly intelligent manipulator of other people. From hiding a car on the Rescue property “so it won’t be repossessed”, to pilfering items from a charity raffle (shades of Firemen’s Ball), to secretly charging her own veterinarian bills to the nonprofit, to lying about nearly everying – Reade seems like the kind of person you learn not to trust and not to take anything at face value with.It’s not to say that some or all of her stories about Biden can’t be true. It does strongly suggest however that her word can’t be trusted – whether it’s her word now, or her word 25+ years ago.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited April 30
    I don't want to see either Tara Reade or Joe Biden tried by the media. This is happening now and probably cannot be stopped. But it is not a fair process to either. Tara Reade's credibility is currently being taken apart in public without any of the checks and balances of due process. Frankly that seems worse to me than the strain of a court trial.

    And if due process does not allow a case to go to court for any reason, that should end the matter. Who is the victim then? The accuser denied their day in court or the accused denied an open process to clear their name? Legal processes may not determine guilt or innocence accurately but they are a lot better than media witch hunts.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    I think we (feminists on the left) set ourselves up for the Tara Reade problem when we said, "Believe all women." Women lie sometimes, just like men do. They even sometimes lie about sexual assault, just ask any divorce lawyer. I don't believe Tara Reade for the simple reason that in 1993 most women were still wearing pantyhose to work. I can't speak for every woman in every business but my bank would never have allowed bare legs with a dress.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    I think we (feminists on the left) set ourselves up for the Tara Reade problem when we said, "Believe all women." Women lie sometimes, just like men do. They even sometimes lie about sexual assault, just ask any divorce lawyer. I don't believe Tara Reade for the simple reason that in 1993 most women were still wearing pantyhose to work. I can't speak for every woman in every business but my bank would never have allowed bare legs with a dress.

    It seems enormously harsh to disbelieve someone based on your assumptions about what she was wearing. I mean, if you had evidence of what she wore at the time I could squint and see it, but to dismiss her account based on your theory?
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'd like to put the last part of Croesos' link above to @Arethosemyfeet and ask why the matters raised are not ggod reasons to disbelieve Biden's accuser on the digital penetration allegation:
    If you want to assess the veracity of an accusation that stems from a single person, then you have to examine the credibility and integrity of the person generally, as well as the history of their relationship with the accused. You can’t legitimately say that’s off limits but meanwhile I choose to believe the unexamined accusation.In this case, the latter undermines the credibility of Reade’s claim. Until very recently, she publicly and repeatedly praised Biden – including praising him for his work on behalf of women’s rights, and endorsing his integrity. There’s also the fact that Reade has given multiple, contradictory accounts of how and why she left the job in Biden’s office. For all we know, none of them may be true; in any case, they show that she freely adapts and remakes her history of herself to suit the audience/occasion.The former, the question of her general credibility, makes Reade’s accusation seem even less solid. For example, her well documented and gnarly record of fluffing Vladimir Putin, denying Putin’s crimes, and gushing over his manliness doesn’t just make her look like a flake. She has also tangled herself into knots denying ever having said or done things wrt Putin that we can prove she is lying about. Likewise, her chronology of her own evolution in thinking about Putin is contradicted by the evidence. So we know she’s worse than a flake; she’s also an outright fake when it suits her.The record of her work for a small non-profit horse rescue in CA (“Pregnant Mare Rescue”) is particularly disturbing. The people who worked with her there described her as a liar, a crook, a con artist, and a highly intelligent manipulator of other people. From hiding a car on the Rescue property “so it won’t be repossessed”, to pilfering items from a charity raffle (shades of Firemen’s Ball), to secretly charging her own veterinarian bills to the nonprofit, to lying about nearly everying – Reade seems like the kind of person you learn not to trust and not to take anything at face value with.It’s not to say that some or all of her stories about Biden can’t be true. It does strongly suggest however that her word can’t be trusted – whether it’s her word now, or her word 25+ years ago.

    I would note that many of those arguments are the same as those made by Harvey Weinstein (Brett Kavanaugh), and indeed many of his accusers had praised him in the intervening period. It's hardly uncommon for victims to have complicated feelings about their attacker.

    If you leave a job because you've been assaulted by your boss you're hardly going to broadcast that, are you? Of course the excuses she gave aren't going to be completely true and hence are likely to change.

    Whether the other accusations against her are true I don't know (one would ask why it's any more likely that she would make up a rape accusation than that people would make up or twist events to discredit her).

    Thing is, she told friends about the attack shortly after it happened, and refused to give the story to right wing media because she knew how they'd use it to boost Trump. Sure, some people make up accounts of abuse, but they generally don't make it up 25+ years ago and hold onto that lie the whole time. What is her supposed motivation for making this up? In a divorce case the reasons are usually obvious. What's the angle meant to be here?

    There is also the circumstantial evidence of Biden's long history of disrespect for the personal space of women, and his contemporaneous terrible attitude to sexual harassment.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate

    It seems enormously harsh to disbelieve someone based on your assumptions about what she was wearing. I mean, if you had evidence of what she wore at the time I could squint and see it, but to dismiss her account based on your theory.

    I'm of that old, "innocent until proven guilty" school. She's the person making charges against someone 27 years after the fact. I think it's harsh toward Biden not to scrutinize her story with all possible skepticism. Where's your evidence for disbelieving him?

  • There's not very good data on false sexual assault claims in the US. Different jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies count them differently, and some agencies conflate "false" and "unfounded" claims - that is, conflate claims that can actually proved to be lies with claims that don't meet the standard of evidence for a trial.

    However, the best evidence available suggests that the rate of false claims of sexual assault is about the same as the rate of false claims of other crimes. There's no evidence that there are more false claims of sexual assault than false claims of any other kind of crime.

    So for theoretical woman A. If you would believe A's words if she said that a man broke into her house, or mugged her on the street, you should also believe A if she says she's been sexually assaulted. There's no reason to suspect A of lying or making up a sexual assault if you don't believe she would make up a mugging or theft.
Sign In or Register to comment.