Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!
Comments
-
Biden
Right, so Team Sanders showed remarkable restraint by not bringing up smears that lacked credibility. That's impressive integrity on their part, then.dankind said:
She doesn’t say Burisma (or anything other than the sexual assault allegations, for that matter) is credible.mrussel1 said:
I don’t know that she speaks for the campaign. She’s listed as “former”. The fact that she thinks Burisma is credible calls into question her general judgment on the issue.pjl44 said:
Yeah, agree totally on Burisma but that's not the point. We're talking about the sexual assault allegations. We don't have to speculate on what the Bernie campaign thought of them. She's telling us.mrussel1 said:
Burisma isn’t close to being a credible issue. It damages the integrity of her post.pjl44 said:
Here's Bernie's Press Secretary calling the allegations crediblemrussel1 said:Well it brings up a curious point. This allegation has been out there for a year, shopped to various outlets and lawyers. There's no doubt that Sanders team has researched it in full. Yet they never brought it up and he suspended his campaign. That strikes me as they see it lacks merit. Sanders will have had oppo research look into this for sure.
That really doesn't make the tweet by her any better.0 -
I'm sitting this one out
And the same could be said for NOT bringing up sexual assault allegations if they indeed believed they were credible.mrussel1 said:
Right, so Team Sanders showed remarkable restraint by not bringing up smears that lacked credibility. That's impressive integrity on their part, then.dankind said:
She doesn’t say Burisma (or anything other than the sexual assault allegations, for that matter) is credible.mrussel1 said:
I don’t know that she speaks for the campaign. She’s listed as “former”. The fact that she thinks Burisma is credible calls into question her general judgment on the issue.pjl44 said:
Yeah, agree totally on Burisma but that's not the point. We're talking about the sexual assault allegations. We don't have to speculate on what the Bernie campaign thought of them. She's telling us.mrussel1 said:
Burisma isn’t close to being a credible issue. It damages the integrity of her post.pjl44 said:
Here's Bernie's Press Secretary calling the allegations crediblemrussel1 said:Well it brings up a curious point. This allegation has been out there for a year, shopped to various outlets and lawyers. There's no doubt that Sanders team has researched it in full. Yet they never brought it up and he suspended his campaign. That strikes me as they see it lacks merit. Sanders will have had oppo research look into this for sure.
That really doesn't make the tweet by her any better.Politics is a zero-integrity game.
FWIW: I have no horse in the race. The editor in me believes that words matter, so I thought it was important to point out the misreading is all.It’s kind of like how saying “both sides are bad” gets twisted by a bunch nasty piles of absolute garbage in AMT to mean “both sides are the same” or my latest favorite: “both sides are equal amounts of bad.”To my knowledge, while some folks may have said the first item in quotes, the only people saying the second and third items in quotes are willfully ignorant reactionaries who can’t be bothered to simply read something instead of reading into something. So I’ll point that out now as well before I adjust my trusty horseshoes.Post edited by dankind onI SAW PEARL JAM0 -
I'm sitting this one out
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.0 -
Biden
The point is:pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register. In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party.
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted. Nor did she say that's why she quit.
Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened? No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.
0 -
Biden
believe me, I get the nuance. But to me, that's 'too cute by a half'. You make a list of everything you could have attacked and only call the one thing credible?dankind said:
And the same could be said for NOT bringing up sexual assault allegations if they indeed believed they were credible.mrussel1 said:
Right, so Team Sanders showed remarkable restraint by not bringing up smears that lacked credibility. That's impressive integrity on their part, then.dankind said:
She doesn’t say Burisma (or anything other than the sexual assault allegations, for that matter) is credible.mrussel1 said:
I don’t know that she speaks for the campaign. She’s listed as “former”. The fact that she thinks Burisma is credible calls into question her general judgment on the issue.pjl44 said:
Yeah, agree totally on Burisma but that's not the point. We're talking about the sexual assault allegations. We don't have to speculate on what the Bernie campaign thought of them. She's telling us.mrussel1 said:
Burisma isn’t close to being a credible issue. It damages the integrity of her post.pjl44 said:
Here's Bernie's Press Secretary calling the allegations crediblemrussel1 said:Well it brings up a curious point. This allegation has been out there for a year, shopped to various outlets and lawyers. There's no doubt that Sanders team has researched it in full. Yet they never brought it up and he suspended his campaign. That strikes me as they see it lacks merit. Sanders will have had oppo research look into this for sure.
That really doesn't make the tweet by her any better.Politics is a zero-integrity game.
FWIW: I have no horse in the race. The editor in me believes that words matter, so I thought it was important to point out the misreading is all.It’s kind of like how saying “both sides are bad” gets twisted by a bunch nasty piles of absolute garbage in AMT to mean “both sides are the same” or my latest favorite: “both sides are equal amounts of bad.”To my knowledge, while some folks may have said the first item in quotes, the only people saying the second and third items in quotes are willfully ignorant reactionaries who can’t be bothered to simply read something instead of reading into something. So I’ll point that out now as well before I adjust my trusty horseshoes.0 -
She recently claimed she left the Biden office because of Biden.pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
Her article says she left the Biden office because of her boyfriend.0 -
I'm sitting this one out
There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.mrussel1 said:
The point is:pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register. In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party.
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted. Nor did she say that's why she quit.
Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened? No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.0 -
Biden
No she never mentioned the assault in 19. It just came up in the past week or two. That's what is unusual. I think the point of the alumni post is to give further credence that she consistently wrote about abuse but never mentioned getting raped at work.pjl44 said:
There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.mrussel1 said:
The point is:pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register. In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party.
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted. Nor did she say that's why she quit.
Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened? No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.
None of this is smoking gun. How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't rape someone in 1992?? That's not a reasonable bar. I guess if you find a payment to her from the Trump campaign, then that's a smoking gun. But outside of that, it will be her word vs his.0 -
pjl44 said:
There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.mrussel1 said:
The point is:pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register. In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party.
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted. Nor did she say that's why she quit.
Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened? No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.
The alumni magazine confirms she is the author of the other article, that is all0 -
I'm sitting this one out
Yeah, this is all whatever. Certainly not eye-opening enough to be hitching oneself to Louise Mensch.mrussel1 said:
No she never mentioned the assault in 19. It just came up in the past week or two. That's what is unusual. I think the point of the alumni post is to give further credence that she consistently wrote about abuse but never mentioned getting raped at work.pjl44 said:
There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.mrussel1 said:
The point is:pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register. In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party.
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted. Nor did she say that's why she quit.
Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened? No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.
None of this is smoking gun. How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't rape someone in 1992?? That's not a reasonable bar. I guess if you find a payment to her from the Trump campaign, then that's a smoking gun. But outside of that, it will be her word vs his.
For the record, I have no clue whether she's telling the truth. Absent some bombshell, I don't think we'll ever know much more than we do now. Like we were saying before, there doesn't really seem to be a forum unless she presses charges.
The thing that is disappointing/illuminating to me is the way it's being handled by the media and partisans, especially when you compare it to Kavanaugh. Scarce few are interested in accountability when it means going after their political allies. Unless it's so egregious a la Weinstein/Epstein.0 -
Biden
I thought Kavanaugh was over the top, that's for sure. However... to me he clearly lied on the stand. There were some terms that were in the yearbook that he said meant something innocuous that we know meant something else. It calls into question his entire narrative.pjl44 said:
Yeah, this is all whatever. Certainly not eye-opening enough to be hitching oneself to Louise Mensch.mrussel1 said:
No she never mentioned the assault in 19. It just came up in the past week or two. That's what is unusual. I think the point of the alumni post is to give further credence that she consistently wrote about abuse but never mentioned getting raped at work.pjl44 said:
There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.mrussel1 said:
The point is:pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register. In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party.
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted. Nor did she say that's why she quit.
Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened? No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.
None of this is smoking gun. How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't rape someone in 1992?? That's not a reasonable bar. I guess if you find a payment to her from the Trump campaign, then that's a smoking gun. But outside of that, it will be her word vs his.
For the record, I have no clue whether she's telling the truth. Absent some bombshell, I don't think we'll ever know much more than we do now. Like we were saying before, there doesn't really seem to be a forum unless she presses charges.
The thing that is disappointing/illuminating to me is the way it's being handled by the media and partisans, especially when you compare it to Kavanaugh. Scarce few are interested in accountability when it means going after their political allies. Unless it's so egregious a la Weinstein/Epstein.0 -
I'm sitting this one out
I'm not talking about his hearing at all. I'm only talking about how the accusations were handled before the hearing even happened.mrussel1 said:
I thought Kavanaugh was over the top, that's for sure. However... to me he clearly lied on the stand. There were some terms that were in the yearbook that he said meant something innocuous that we know meant something else. It calls into question his entire narrative.pjl44 said:
Yeah, this is all whatever. Certainly not eye-opening enough to be hitching oneself to Louise Mensch.mrussel1 said:
No she never mentioned the assault in 19. It just came up in the past week or two. That's what is unusual. I think the point of the alumni post is to give further credence that she consistently wrote about abuse but never mentioned getting raped at work.pjl44 said:
There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.mrussel1 said:
The point is:pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register. In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party.
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted. Nor did she say that's why she quit.
Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened? No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.
None of this is smoking gun. How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't rape someone in 1992?? That's not a reasonable bar. I guess if you find a payment to her from the Trump campaign, then that's a smoking gun. But outside of that, it will be her word vs his.
For the record, I have no clue whether she's telling the truth. Absent some bombshell, I don't think we'll ever know much more than we do now. Like we were saying before, there doesn't really seem to be a forum unless she presses charges.
The thing that is disappointing/illuminating to me is the way it's being handled by the media and partisans, especially when you compare it to Kavanaugh. Scarce few are interested in accountability when it means going after their political allies. Unless it's so egregious a la Weinstein/Epstein.0 -
The victim testified under oath during Kavanaugh.mrussel1 said:
I thought Kavanaugh was over the top, that's for sure. However... to me he clearly lied on the stand. There were some terms that were in the yearbook that he said meant something innocuous that we know meant something else. It calls into question his entire narrative.pjl44 said:
Yeah, this is all whatever. Certainly not eye-opening enough to be hitching oneself to Louise Mensch.mrussel1 said:
No she never mentioned the assault in 19. It just came up in the past week or two. That's what is unusual. I think the point of the alumni post is to give further credence that she consistently wrote about abuse but never mentioned getting raped at work.pjl44 said:
There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.mrussel1 said:
The point is:pjl44 said:
I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.mrussel1 said:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyerpjl44 said:
Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.mrussel1 said:
Why not read Reade's actual words?pjl44 said:
I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.mrussel1 said:
You don't have to believe her. You can read the two documents she sources for yourself. They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband. She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".pjl44 said:Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
https://archive.li/6ykxK
There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her. Read the two primary documents yourself.
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register. In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party.
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted. Nor did she say that's why she quit.
Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened? No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.
None of this is smoking gun. How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't rape someone in 1992?? That's not a reasonable bar. I guess if you find a payment to her from the Trump campaign, then that's a smoking gun. But outside of that, it will be her word vs his.
For the record, I have no clue whether she's telling the truth. Absent some bombshell, I don't think we'll ever know much more than we do now. Like we were saying before, there doesn't really seem to be a forum unless she presses charges.
The thing that is disappointing/illuminating to me is the way it's being handled by the media and partisans, especially when you compare it to Kavanaugh. Scarce few are interested in accountability when it means going after their political allies. Unless it's so egregious a la Weinstein/Epstein.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I'm sitting this one outI was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?0 -
Biden
Why are you on about Louise Mensch? You're making this about her. She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.pjl44 said:I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?
0 -
I'm sitting this one out
She's a bullshit artist and whatever gotcha she thinks she's presenting is bullshitmrussel1 said:
Why are you on about Louise Mensch? You're making this about her. She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.pjl44 said:I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?0 -
pjl44 said:
She's a bullshit artist and whatever gotcha she thinks she's presenting is bullshitmrussel1 said:
Why are you on about Louise Mensch? You're making this about her. She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.pjl44 said:I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?
Louise Mensch : bullshit artist
Tara Reade : totally believable
lol ok0 -
Biden
You've completely missed the point I was making because you're do hung up on her.pjl44 said:
She's a bullshit artist and whatever gotcha she thinks she's presenting is bullshitmrussel1 said:
Why are you on about Louise Mensch? You're making this about her. She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.pjl44 said:I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?0 -
I'm sitting this one out
What was your point?mrussel1 said:
You've completely missed the point I was making because you're do hung up on her.pjl44 said:
She's a bullshit artist and whatever gotcha she thinks she's presenting is bullshitmrussel1 said:
Why are you on about Louise Mensch? You're making this about her. She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.pjl44 said:I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?0 -
Biden
That until two weeks ago, she never accused Biden of this, even when she was on record talking about abuse several times. And in 2019, talking specifically about Biden and that he touched her neck inappropriately. But suddenly in the last two weeks, we’ve escalated to assault.pjl44 said:
What was your point?mrussel1 said:
You've completely missed the point I was making because you're do hung up on her.pjl44 said:
She's a bullshit artist and whatever gotcha she thinks she's presenting is bullshitmrussel1 said:
Why are you on about Louise Mensch? You're making this about her. She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.pjl44 said:I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help