US Presidential Election 2020

The Nal

marno21 wrote: »

Justin Amash is seeking the Libertarian Party nomination

He'll be branded as a paedo within weeks.

serfboard

marno21 wrote: »

Justin Amash is seeking the Libertarian Party nomination

I would have thought that this would be a help to Biden, since Libertarians generally fish in the same pool as Republicans.

Those responding to that tweet think that it will be a help to Trump, reasoning that it will split the anti-Trump vote.

Quin_Dub

serfboard wrote: »

I would have thought that this would be a help to Biden, since Libertarians generally fish in the same pool as Republicans.

Those responding to that tweet think that it will be a help to Trump, reasoning that it will split the anti-Trump vote.

Both views have some merit to be honest..

He could for example help swing Michigan - Biden already has a 5 point lead there , but Amash taking some GOP votes helps further.

But he also gives the Republican anyone but Trump camp a potentially more palatable choice than voting Democrat.

Equally though, thinking back to those few states that Trump won by 70/80k votes combined..

Let's say , Amash picks up a similar 70/80k votes across those states and he takes them mostly off Trump instead of maybe over half of them them going to Biden.

So Biden gets the same as Hilary did in 2016 and Trump loses 50/60k votes , but because Amash has given those GOP voters another option , Trump maybe wins those states..

So , he might help in some states , but he might hurt in others.

But overall , I'd generally fall on the "Amash might muddy the waters for Biden" side of things though.

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Both views have some merit to be honest..

He could for example help swing Michigan - Biden already has a 5 point lead there , but Amash taking some GOP votes helps further.

But he also gives the Republican anyone but Trump camp a potentially more palatable choice than voting Democrat.

Equally though, thinking back to those few states that Trump won by 70/80k votes combined..

Let's say , Amash picks up a similar 70/80k votes across those states and he takes them mostly off Trump instead of maybe over half of them them going to Biden.

So Biden gets the same as Hilary did in 2016 and Trump loses 50/60k votes , but because Amash has given those GOP voters another option , Trump maybe wins those states..

So , he might help in some states , but he might hurt in others.

But overall , I'd generally fall on the "Amash might muddy the waters for Biden" side of things though.

So Justin Amash would be Ross Perot then ? Which wouldn't help trump as It didn't help bush 41 in 1992.

Rjd2

serfboard wrote: »

I would have thought that this would be a help to Biden, since Libertarians generally fish in the same pool as Republicans.

Those responding to that tweet think that it will be a help to Trump, reasoning that it will split the anti-Trump vote.

Looking at the responses and plenty of those echo chamber superstars see Putin under the bed, best not to take them seriously. I seen some twit suggest he was on the payroll of Betsy De Vos. less said the better.

Amash is a conservative libertarian who should have little appeal to Democrats. He is obviously better than the two front runners on overseas policies but Dem's don't care about that sadly. He is more likely to appeal to socially conservative small government Republicans who may be on the fence about voting for Trump.

Its good he is running, look at the two front runners, both 70+mentally unfit and creditably accused of rape, happy to have someone with some decency on the ballot.:)

serfboard

Rjd2 wrote: »

He is more likely to appeal to socially conservative small government Republicans who may be on the fence about voting for Trump.

Indeed. That's what I would have thought, but I also thought it was interesting to give another perspective which has a certain logic to it - even if it did come from Twitter.

Rjd2

serfboard wrote: »

Indeed. That's what I would have thought, but I also thought it was interesting to give another perspective which has a certain logic to it - even if it did come from Twitter.

We won't know until the election unless Putin cancels it. :P

You can make arguments for both sides as you have seen here and its possible I am wrong (not the first time) but some of the takes especially from the never trumpers are silly.

I think a Libertarian like Johnson who is much more liberal than Amash on social issues would have been a disaster for Biden, but right now someone like Ventura should be a bigger concern for Biden not Justin.

Breakerz

Rjd2 wrote: »

Looking at the responses and plenty of those echo chamber superstars see Putin under the bed, best not to take them seriously. I seen some twit suggest he was on the payroll of Betsy De Vos. less said the better.

Amash is a conservative libertarian who should have little appeal to Democrats. He is obviously better than the two front runners on overseas policies but Dem's don't care about that sadly. He is more likely to appeal to socially conservative small government Republicans who may be on the fence about voting for Trump.

Its good he is running, look at the two front runners, both 70+mentally unfit and creditably accused of rape, happy to have someone with some decency on the ballot.:)

The definition of what the Democrats represent depends on what state you're in. Maybe you're point is true in NY but not in PA. Plenty of democrats I've met would be more conservative than progressive but that's the problem with the Democrats, it's a big house party that still can't find common ground on major issues like gun control and healthcare.

pixelburp

Indeed, it's one of the many fundamental problems with the two party system, that was already stretching when the Tea Party started becoming prominent - but is now arguably bursting at the seams by the clash of principles within the Democrats. With socialism showing green shoots across the US, those budding politicians have to go somewhere to get traction with their policies. They're not going to pick the GOP so the only option is to make that Democrat umbrella even larger. Under no normal circumstances should Nancy Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders be in the same party. It's no wonder the party is riven by in-fighting. Hell, IIRC Sanders was independent until he become a Democrat if only to further his agenda.

The fact a credible 3rd party has never even got a sliver of national attention is kind of astonishing. Even a summer romance, a brief dalliance in national politics. But nope, you got two choices. Lord help the young generations trying to come to terms with finding their place within it.

Quin_Dub

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed, it's one of the many fundamental problems with the two party system, that was already stretching when the Tea Party started becoming prominent - but is now arguably bursting at the seams by the clash of principles within the Democrats. With socialism showing green shoots across the US, those budding politicians have to go somewhere to get traction with their policies. They're not going to pick the GOP so the only option is to make that Democrat umbrella even larger. Under no normal circumstances should Nancy Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders be in the same party. It's no wonder the party is riven by in-fighting. Hell, IIRC Sanders was independent until he become a Democrat if only to further his agenda.

The fact a credible 3rd party has never even got a sliver of national attention is kind of astonishing. Even a summer romance, a brief dalliance in national politics. But nope, you got two choices. Lord help the young generations trying to come to terms with finding their place within it.

The almost complete lack of Independents is also incredible..

There are 2 Independent Senators (well one and a half) - Angus King and Bernie Sanders

Amash is the only one on the House , there's an independent "Delegate" from the Northern Mariana Islands , but that really doesn't count.

I'm surprised that there aren't more , particularly in the House.

Foxtrol

I understand the argument to move away from a 2 party system, but the left in Ireland is a perfect example of why it would never be enough for ideologues and those interested in climbing the political ladder. At this stage there is an alphabet soup of left parties with TDs jumping from one to the other or starting their own party when they have policy disagreements or for personal gain.

Foxtrol

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The almost complete lack of Independents is also incredible..

There are 2 Independent Senators (well one and a half) - Angus King and Bernie Sanders

Amash is the only one on the House , there's an independent "Delegate" from the Northern Mariana Islands , but that really doesn't count.

I'm surprised that there aren't more , particularly in the House.

Not really. The cost to get any traction in the US elections is incredible and that is before you move into the 'get out the vote' element.

Most states and districts are so heavily blue or red that the winner is decided by the primary.

StringerBell

Bernie is basically the only independent in the Senate, though obviously he caucuses with the Democrats of course. To my knowledge he has never been a member of either party and in fact it was only that he actually got to run against a Democrat with no GOP candidate in the race that got him elected in his first election I believe. King was a lifelong Democrat right up to when he ran for Governer as an independent, dunno what happened there but he still caucuses with the Democrats too.

2ndcoming

At this stage all Biden has to do is stay alive.

It's a damning indictment of that party that he is acceptable as their candidate, especially in light of the opposition.

sid waddell

This is a very good article by former federal prosecutor Michael Stern laying out in calm and clear terms why Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden is likely not credible. Stern has extensive experience in prosecuting rape and sexual assault cases.

Since I started reading about the allegation, I have felt it didn't pass the smell test at all, and I still think that. Reade's story is highly contradictory, has continually changed, and lacks detail. It has all the hallmarks of a highly unreliable allegation.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/

eagle eye

Michael J Stern is a democrat and Trump hater. Anything he says is going to be in favour of Democrat candidates.

rossie1977

Compliments for Biden. In the 1990s, Biden worked to pass the Violence Against Women Act. In 2017, on multiple occasions, Reade retweeted or “liked” praise for Biden and his work combating sexual assault. In the same year, Reade tweeted other compliments of Biden, including: “My old boss speaks truth. Listen.” It is bizarre that Reade would publicly laud Biden for combating the very thing she would later accuse him of doing to her.

Yeah..

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

Michael J Stern is a democrat and Trump hater. Anything he says is going to be in favour of Democrat candidates.

Standard response to attack the messenger when it goes against the message

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

Standard response to attack the messenger when it goes against the message

I didn't attack the message, just stating a fact.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't attack the message, just stating a fact.

You just called him a trump hater so by insinuation he should be ignored, how is that not attacking the messenger? Why don't you discredit what they said first.

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

You just called him a trump hater so by insinuation he should be ignored, how is that not attacking the messenger? Why don't you discredit what they said first.

I'm just pointing out who he is and where he stands.
Anything he writes is going to be in favour of Biden and/or against Trump so people really shouldn't take much heed of it as it's biased.
Show me an article from an unbiased person and then we can have a discussion about it's merits. I think you'll find that an unbiased person would have a far more serious view and believe it should be investigated and taken very seriously.
I'm not saying he did do it just to be clear. I have no clue. I don't agree with attempts to publicly denounce the accuser though. I think that's very wrong.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm just pointing out who he is and where he stands.
Anything he writes is going to be in favour of Biden and/or against Trump so people really shouldn't take much heed of it as it's biased.
Show me an article from an unbiased person and then we can have a discussion about it's merits. I think you'll find that an unbiased person would have a far more serious view and believe it should be investigated and taken very seriously.
I'm not saying he did do it just to be clear. I have no clue. I don't agree with attempts to publicly denounce the accuser though. I think that's very wrong.

So that's a no then, have you articles by the writer that prove he should be discredited?

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

So that's a no then, have you articles by the writer that prove he should be discredited?

All you have to do is look at his Twitter account and you'll see for yourself.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

All you have to do is look at his Twitter account and you'll see for yourself.

So with that in mind, all one has to do is look back on your posts and dismiss anything you say. Do you see how that works?

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

So with that in mind, all one has to do is look back on your posts and dismiss anything you say. Do you see how that works?

Why? Have I been constantly favouring one side over another?

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

Why? Have I been constantly favouring one side over another?

eagle eye wrote: »

All you have to do is look at his Twitter your posts account and you'll see for yourself.

like this

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote: »

like this

Yes. look at my posts and you'll see that I'm saying that Trump, despite being the worst POTUS in history, is a better option than Biden. You'll see me say that I'd love to see them force Biden out and parachute in somebody like Cuomo or Michelle Obama and we'd have a great POTUS for eight years.

So how does that put me on one side of the fence can you tell me?

If you look at Michael J Stern's twitter account all you will see is positive about Democrat candidates and negative about Republican candidates. It's completely one sided from him.

I don't get what you are trying to suggest and what your basis for it is.

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes. look at my posts and you'll see that I'm saying that Trump, despite being the worst POTUS in history, is a better option than Biden. You'll see me say that I'd love to see them force Biden out and parachute in somebody like Cuomo or Michelle Obama and we'd have a great POTUS for eight years.

So how does that put me on one side of the fence can you tell me?

If you look at Michael J Stern's twitter account all you will see is positive about Democrat candidates and negative about Republican candidates. It's completely one sided from him.

I don't get what you are trying to suggest and what your basis for it is.

Your posts are continuously anti-Biden so by your twisted logic, nothing you post about Biden, even if it is an unquestioned fact, should be listened to because you are not unbiased.

The idea that facts are not facts any more if they come from a biased source is ridiculous.

Rjd2

Rich Mc Hugh deserves huge credit, the more this progresses it doesn't look good for Biden. The good news for Joe is he still has a lot of bootlickers in the media who are content to look the other way. The fact he has not been asked about this is astonishing and even Yesterday Pence not wearing a mask received more attention.
Insane
that so many who deemed Kavanaugh guilty instantly are willing to give Biden a man who has been accused of 7 other women a pass because he is on the same side as them.

https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1255474811041714178


Thank God that Amash is running, he won't win obviously, but America deserves to have someone on the ballot that is not creditably accused of been a rapist.

Rjd2

Chris Hayes is Democrat Establishment personified, but the reaction he has received for finally covering the Reade story is wild.

I know Fox viewers are a cult at times, but its no different for many when it comes to MSNBC. Clearly living in an echo chamber where any criticism of their sacred cows is PUTIN !! or Trump's handiwork. That's a cult and not healthy for democracy. Fox and MSNBC are lost causes, CNN must not go down that route.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/fire-chris-hayes-joe-biden/

sid waddell

Rjd2 wrote: »

Chris Hayes is Democrat Establishment personified, but the reaction he has received for finally covering the Reade story is wild.

I know Fox viewers are a cult at times, but its no different for many when it comes to MSNBC. Clearly living in an echo chamber where any criticism of their sacred cows is PUTIN !! or Trump's handiwork. That's a cult and not healthy for democracy. Fox and MSNBC are lost causes, CNN must not go down that route.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/fire-chris-hayes-joe-biden/

Have you ever considered that it may in fact be yourself who is living in an echo chamber?

Certainly the tone of your posts would strongly suggest you haven't ever considered such.

Rjd2

sid waddell wrote: »

Have you ever considered that it may in fact be yourself who is living in an echo chamber?

Certainly the tone of your posts would strongly suggest you haven't ever considered such.

Fair point, maybe,,I don't think so but isn't that what everyone says.


The echo chamber element has been on display for Biden online. Those from the right who are screaming at Biden while trying slyly to absolve Kav' of blame are hacks while those on the left who were supposedly all in on MeToo looking the other way when a sacred cow is accused are no better.

Its what makes this era so annoying, nobody can call out a sacred cow on their side without the masses questioning there supposed allegiances as Hayes found out last night.


For Biden, lets see the records and he should sit down with someone and discuss the allegations. It can't be a PR piece like Kav' did with Fox, it's got to someone fair and ideally not a DNC bootlicker.

eagle eye

sid waddell wrote:

Have you ever considered that it may in fact be yourself who is living in an echo chamber?

Certainly the tone of your posts would strongly suggest you haven't ever considered such.

His last post which you quote seems sensible and unbiased to me. I don't understand how you'd come to suggest it's anything else?

MadYaker

I think Biden is safe continuing to ignore this to be honest. It has no meat on it than the Brett Kavanaugh nonsense as far as I can tell.

Rjd2

MadYaker wrote: »

I think Biden is safe continuing to ignore this to be honest. It has no meat on it than the Brett Kavanaugh nonsense as far as I can tell.

Yes and No.

If anyone has the misfortune of reading my posts then where I stand on it is clear, yep its a good time to ignore the story with the virus dominating the headlines............however he ignoring this means that the likes of Warren, Harris, Amy K have to do defense for him and that's unfair and obviously the optics is awful.


He needs to sit down with someone like Tapper and answer questions about it at least.

sid waddell

Rjd2 wrote: »

Fair point, maybe,,I don't think so but isn't that what everyone says.


The echo chamber element has been on display for Biden online. Those from the right who are screaming at Biden while trying slyly to absolve Kav' of blame are hacks while those on the left who were supposedly all in on MeToo looking the other way when a sacred cow is accused are no better.

Its what makes this era so annoying, nobody can call out a sacred cow on their side without the masses questioning there supposed allegiances as Hayes found out last night.


For Biden, lets see the records and he should sit down with someone and discuss the allegations. It can't be a PR piece like Kav' did with Fox, it's got to someone fair and ideally not a DNC bootlicker.

Sure above you were talking about MSNBC being an echo chamber and yet you contradicted yourself by citing a discussion of the Tara Reade allegation on MSNBC. So called liberal/left media and civil society is highly split over the allegation and how to treat it.

Have you considered that people may have actually done some research on the allegation and simply find that based on what we know, that it is likely not credible?

What does "believing women" mean? In my view it means taking the default view that any allegation is being made in good faith. You listen to the complainant's story, and then you examine the facts and other evidence around it. It doesn't mean that any allegation made by a woman should automatically be deemed as the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that it should or could never be questioned or challlenged. Otherwise there would be no due process, and any man could be locked up purely on the say so of any woman who, for whatever reason, wanted to make a false allegation - which would obviously be preposterous.

In my view, Reade's allegation has been largely treated with good faith. There have been extensive journalistic investigations, which have been handled responsibly and with respect, and Reade has had plenty of opportunity to present a credible case, but so far has not done so. From what has emerged so far the allegation looks highly dubious, there are numerous inconsistencies, Reade's story has changed numerous times, and there is a curious lack of detail.

Reade's excessive praise of Putin, and the bizarre sexualised tones of it, are, at the very least, highly suspicious and worthy of further investigation. Would you not agree? That isn't to say that somebody sympathetic to Russia can't be raped - far from it - it's to say that her bizarre change of views regarding Russia is materially relevant to the political climate in which the allegation has been made. It does raise the question of possible motive in terms of false allegation.

The Russian angle is very worthy of discussion, as Russia is openly supporting Trump in this election, as it did in 2016, and Trump and the Republican party are openly touting for that support. Russia under Putin has a long history of malign interference abroad, in elections, militarily, propaganda-wise. Every move it makes should be viewed with the utmost suspicion. It is a highly dangerous, malevolent actor on the international stage, and a Russian-backed and/or amplified smear campaign against the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, regardless of who it turned out to be, has long been widely expected.

Earlier on I posted an article by Michael Stern, an experienced prosecutor in the field of rape and sexual assault cases, in which he laid out in very reasonable terms why he felt the allegation was likely not credible.

No poster has yet argued with the substance of that article.

Another red flag around the allegation is that in March 2020, as her allegation against Biden was about to become news, Reade went back and materially edited an article she wrote for for Medium in April 2019 so that that article would match her March 2020 story (the below tweet goes into it).

I reserve the right to change my mind should the facts change, but at the moment my personal view, having read a lot about the allegation, is that it is not persuasive, doesn't stand up, and, sorry to say, is very likely a classic Russian-backed smear campaign.

I say that as somebody who is not enthused by Biden, thinks some of his past behaviour is problematic (though not criminal) and has huge concerns in general about him as a candidate. I would much rather Warren or Sanders were facing Trump.

https://twitter.com/rosmith94/status/1255658777782542336

MadYaker

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yes and No.

If anyone has the misfortune of reading my posts then where I stand on it is clear, yep its a good time to ignore the story with the virus dominating the headlines............however he ignoring this means that the likes of Warren, Harris, Amy K have to do defense for him and that's unfair and obviously the optics is awful.


He needs to sit down with someone like Tapper and answer questions about it at least.

What has he got to gain by doing that as things currently stand? Nothing id argue. This story will fade.

Foxtrol

MadYaker wrote: »

What has he got to gain by doing that as things currently stand? Nothing id argue. This story will fade.

It won't fade in the echo chamber of MAGA or salty Bernie Bros but with all that is going on it won't get traction anywhere else.

There is a reason why this took so long to get any minimal coverage and it is because when you look at the facts it just doesn't seem credible. Even the folk that have come out to claim she told them about it in the past don't seem reliable. A journalist has admitted to coaching her brother on information that he left out initially and her old neighbour admitted that she only remembered it after the alleged victim called to remind her. Neither have given statements to the police.

Rjd2

sid waddell wrote: »

Sure above you were talking about MSNBC being an echo chamber and yet you contradicted yourself by citing a discussion of the Tara Reade allegation on MSNBC. So called liberal/left media and civil society is highly split over the allegation and how to treat it.

Have you considered that people may have actually done some research on the allegation and simply find that based on what we know, that it is likely not credible?

What does "believing women" mean? In my view it means taking the default view that any allegation is being made in good faith. You listen to the complainant's story, and then you examine the facts and other evidence around it. It doesn't mean that any allegation made by a woman should automatically be deemed as the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that it should or could never be questioned or challlenged. Otherwise there would be no due process, and any man could be locked up purely on the say so of any woman who, for whatever reason, wanted to make a false allegation - which would obviously be preposterous.

In my view, Reade's allegation has been largely treated with good faith. There have been extensive journalistic investigations, which have been handled responsibly and with respect, and Reade has had plenty of opportunity to present a credible case, but so far has not done so. From what has emerged so far the allegation looks highly dubious, there are numerous inconsistencies, Reade's story has changed numerous times, and there is a curious lack of detail.

Reade's excessive praise of Putin, and the bizarre sexualised tones of it, are, at the very least, highly suspicious and worthy of further investigation. Would you not agree? That isn't to say that somebody sympathetic to Russia can't be raped - far from it - it's to say that her bizarre change of views regarding Russia is materially relevant to the political climate in which the allegation has been made. It does raise the question of possible motive in terms of false allegation.

The Russian angle is very worthy of discussion, as Russia is openly supporting Trump in this election, as it did in 2016, and Trump and the Republican party are openly touting for that support. Russia under Putin has a long history of malign interference abroad, in elections, militarily, propaganda-wise. Every move it makes should be viewed with the utmost suspicion. It is a highly dangerous, malevolent actor on the international stage, and a Russian-backed and/or amplified smear campaign against the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, regardless of who it turned out to be, has long been widely expected.

Earlier on I posted an article by Michael Stern, an experienced prosecutor in the field of rape and sexual assault cases, in which he laid out in very reasonable terms why he felt the allegation was likely not credible.

No poster has yet argued with the substance of that article.

Another red flag around the allegation is that in March 2020, as her allegation against Biden was about to become news, Reade went back and materially edited an article she wrote for for Medium in April 2019 so that that article would match her March 2020 story (the below tweet goes into it).

I reserve the right to change my mind should the facts change, but at the moment my personal view, having read a lot about the allegation, is that it is not persuasive, doesn't stand up, and, sorry to say, is very likely a classic Russian-backed smear campaign.

I say that as somebody who is not enthused by Biden, thinks some of his past behaviour is problematic (though not criminal) and has huge concerns in general about him as a candidate. I would much rather Warren or Sanders were facing Trump.

https://twitter.com/rosmith94/status/1255658777782542336

Its not been covered fairly at all.

The story was sat on by mainstream media until Bernie was out and then it was treated with disdain. NYT edited their initial "investigation" to keep the Biden campaign happy while another journo ran a hit piece on Reade.



https://twitter.com/laurawags/status/1249824539447615490
https://twitter.com/shujaxhaider/status/1249888015985639424

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/04/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-allegation-media

Jacobin the noted MAGA magazine broke down how slow the coverage was.

The Putin thing is weird, nobody should be putting Vlad on a pedestal, but it would be understandable if you were raped by someone as beloved as Biden. It's not a deal breaker for me, if it is for others, that's fine .

Juanita Broderick is very right wing these days, but heh if she was raped and the democrat establishment ignored her she was always going to be vulnerable to that sort of politics.

On the case, Biden has declined to be interviewed (not one question yet about it despite numerous tv appearances) and no sign of him agreeing to have his senate papers unsealed. He needs to agree to at least one of those scenarios rather than expecting BlueMaga online and female senators to answer his questions.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its not been covered fairly at all.

The story was sat on by mainstream media until Bernie was out and then it was treated with disdain. NYT edited their initial "investigation" to keep the Biden campaign happy while another journo ran a hit piece on Reade.

https://twitter.com/laurawags/status/1249824539447615490
https://twitter.com/shujaxhaider/status/1249888015985639424

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/04/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-allegation-media

Jacobin the noted MAGA magazine broke down how slow the coverage was.

The Putin thing is weird, nobody should be putting Vlad on a pedestal, but it would be understandable if you were raped by someone as beloved as Biden. It's not a deal breaker for me, if it is for others, that's fine .

Juanita Broderick is very right wing these days, but heh if she was raped and the democrat establishment ignored her she was always going to be vulnerable to that sort of politics.

On the case, Biden has declined to be interviewed (not one question yet about it despite numerous tv appearances) and no sign of him agreeing to have his senate papers unsealed. He needs to agree to at least one of those scenarios rather than expecting BlueMaga online and female senators to answer his questions.

The story being sat on due to Bernie is some conspiracy nonsense to blame someone else for his campaign and supporter's failures. The media researched it and deemed it not to be credible enough to run with.

It is the same reason why the story of Trump doing worse to a 13 year old isn't regularly cited on mainstream outlets, even though that person has gone much further and sued over it.

For the Biden case eventually a few smaller sources ran with it as an allegation and larger ones felt the need to report on the reporting.

eagle eye

Whatever about it gaining traction or not there should not be any pieces belittling her or calling her a liar. The only two people who really know if anything happened are the two people in question and a potential victim should never be belittled or mistreated unless there is absolute proof that the allegation is false.

serfboard

sid waddell wrote: »

Russia under Putin has a long history of malign interference abroad, in elections, militarily, propaganda-wise.

As opposed to the US, which has always behaved benignly, and has never interfered in any other country ...

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

Whatever about it gaining traction or not there should not be any pieces belittling her or calling her a liar. The only two people who really know if anything happened are the two people in question and a potential victim should never be belittled or mistreated unless there is absolute proof that the allegation is false.

I haven't seen any pieces calling her a liar, just ones highlighting valid credibility issues with her story. Even then they have actually kept it quite focused on the credibility of the allegation, rather than talking about her broader credibility like how it is alleged that she stole from a charity.

Again by your strange logic it sounds like you're saying when the allegation is reported by the media any information that supports the allegation should be included in the story but anything that raises doubt should be left out. Doesn't seem like a balanced approach at all.

Foxtrol

serfboard wrote: »

As opposed to the US, which has always behaved benignly, and has never interfered in any other country ...

Isn't it regularly raised in Irish politics when groups have connections with right wing US groups/donors?

If those connections are something that should be publicised then why have an issue with links to Russia being highlighted?

sid waddell

serfboard wrote: »

As opposed to the US, which has always behaved benignly, and has never interfered in any other country ...

The US obviously has a long history of malign interference abroad - militarily, in elections, propaganda wise, trade-wise - probably the most malign of any country since World War II (though it's close with the Soviets up to 1989). I don't think anybody who is honest would say otherwise. Russia is certainly rivalling it now in that regard however and at present is the most malign actor internationally of any country.

sid waddell

eagle eye wrote: »

Whatever about it gaining traction or not there should not be any pieces belittling her or calling her a liar. The only two people who really know if anything happened are the two people in question and a potential victim should never be belittled or mistreated unless there is absolute proof that the allegation is false.

Can you link to any?

See there's a thing here. The nature of this allegation is such that one of them is definitely lying. There really is no middle ground. It's not like in some rape cases where there is a big grey area - where the complainant can legitimately think they have been raped and the defendant can legitimately believe that they what they were doing was not rape. There are lots cases like that, where even if they don't end in a rape conviction, there's no suggestion that the complainant was acting in anything other than good faith. The Jackson/Olding trial was one of those cases.

But in this case, either Reade is lying, or Biden is lying. It has to be one or the other.

So, if you've examined the allegation and find it doesn't stand up, that by definition means you think Reade is lying.

But here's the thing. A large section, probably a very large majority, of the Democratic voting base has as a default position that all women should be believed, ie. that every allegation should be taken in good faith (then you examine the evidence to see whather it's credible or not). I would hold this position.

But for many, the phrase "believe women" is pretty much a literal position, many believe that all women are always telling the truth as regards sexual assault allegations, at least unless proven that they aren't, and even then there's a fringe minority who would probably still side with the woman.

In a nutshell, most Democratic voters or those who would consider voting for them actually care about rape, sexual assault (and indeed sexual harrassment or other poor behaviour towards women) as an issue - look how Warren confronting Bloomberg at the debates went down a storm - and especially since #metoo (it was probably a bit different back in the Clinton days but it's 20 years since he was president). They don't want candidates who are credibly accused of rape or sexual assault.

And the Republicans know this full well.

The Republican party on the other hand is both intellectually and especially morally bankrupt, I think it can reasonably be said that it is almost completely immoral. For them, power is the only thing and if their candidate is a rapist, and you'd have to be incredibly gullible to think that Trump isn't a serial rapist and sexual asssaulter, they will defend him to the death. The Republicans will defend anybody to the death, now matter how scummy, as long as they're a Republican.

Diehard Republicans tend to hate #metoo, Democrats are almost exclusively on board with it.

One party and one voting base operates largely in good faith on this topic, the other party and the other voting base does not.

Which means that the way is wide open for Republicans to exploit #metoo as a wedge issue to split Democrats - by weaponising sexual assault and rape. By using their bad faith to expolit Democrats' good faith.

It doesn't matter whether the allegation has any truth to it, because a large section of the Democratic voting base, especially younger voters and especially younger women voters, will default tend to believe the allegation, or at the very least tend to strongly sympathise with a complainant.

The same can't be done in reverse - ie. Trump can't be damaged by any more rape or sexual assault allegations, even if true - because his voting base is completely tribal and basically don't care about sexual assault and rape, some of them even rejoice in it, that's the strong impression I get anyway.

So what's the easiest way to split Democrats? Find somebody who will say they were raped by their presidential candidate.

And then, even if the allegation doesn't stand up, as strongly seems to be the case here, how do you rebut it?

As I said at the start of this post, this is a case where either Reade or Biden has to be lying.

So the logical corollary of that is that if you think the allegation doesn't stand up, you think Reade is lying. For the record, I don't think the allegation stands up at all and I do think she is lying.

But it would be complete political suicide for Biden or anybody in the Democratic party to say they think Reade is lying, because it would alienate younger voters.

It's probably not a good idea for Biden to confront the allegation head on as then you have a Streisand effect.

So the best course of action is probably to say nothing. But that's not really satisfactory either and leaves the whole thing sort of rumbling along in the background, possibly to blow up later in the campaign.

The Republicans have known all this for years and have had ample time to prepare. Had Sanders or, say, O'Rourke or Booker been the candidate, I've no doubt they would have faced a made up rape allegation.

And your wording is very instructive. You're demanding absolute proof of a negative. And that's extremely difficult, probably impossible for anybody accused of a crime in the wrong to provide - especially an alleged crime for which there isn't even a date provided.

What you're doing is the exact same thing the whole of the right-wing propaganda industry in the US is doing.

duploelabs

edit:wrong thread

marno21

First Biden was corrupt - and his son was doing dodgy dealings in Ukraine
Then he was senile
Now he's a sex predator.

Hillary had a minor fall and she was written off mentally. Then she was holding meetings with Goldman Sachs. She was running a child sex ring from a pizzeria. Her charity was corrupt. Her husband is the benchmark for the worst behavior seen in a US President. Her emails. Benghazi etc.

Bernie's a Communist. A Soviet sympathiser. He wants to take away your doctors.

AOC is priviliged. What would a barmaid know about politics. She wants to take way air travel, cows etc. She's out of touch.

No matter who the Democrats put up, there will be dirt fired at them. The RNC will be delighted that they have unpaid operatives on this very forum smearing Democrats for them.

eagle eye

sid waddell wrote:

So, if you've examined the allegation and find it doesn't stand up, that by definition means you think Reade is lying.

That should never be printed in the media though. It's basically calling her a liar which may not be the case and means an actual victim is being ripped apart in the media.
It's ok to hold that opinion but you have to keep it to yourself.
As I've said there are only two people who know if something happened and they are the only two that should make comments about whether the accusation has merit or not.

Rjd2

marno21 wrote: »

First Biden was corrupt - and his son was doing dodgy dealings in Ukraine
Then he was senile
Now he's a sex predator.

Hillary had a minor fall and she was written off mentally. Then she was holding meetings with Goldman Sachs. She was running a child sex ring from a pizzeria. Her charity was corrupt. Her husband is the benchmark for the worst behavior seen in a US President. Her emails. Benghazi etc.

Bernie's a Communist. A Soviet sympathiser. He wants to take away your doctors.

AOC is priviliged. What would a barmaid know about politics. She wants to take way air travel, cows etc. She's out of touch.

No matter who the Democrats put up, there will be dirt fired at them. The RNC will be delighted that they have unpaid operatives on this very forum smearing Democrats for them.

You can consider Biden crap which I do and like Bernie and AOC.

They are others who like Biden and wouldn't be massive fans of Bernie and they are entitled to their opinion as much as I am mine, doesn't mean that either group are doing the work of Republicans.

I think most people here would admit the Republicans are dire, but as the thread is focused on the Dems then you will have people discuss them rather than Trump who gets more focus on the other thread.

For all the talk of echo chambers from me and others, you will find plenty online on the left who will be as scathing to their supposed kin as Republicans.

Its the problem with only having 2 parties of any note in America.