I like Amash but I just wish he would've ran a primary challenge to Trump instead of this. He's likely to garner some Never Trumper votes that either would've gone to Biden or would've not voted. I think that is why people are thinking he would hurt Biden. Didn't ready the NYT piece, though, but I'm assuming they talked about that...
I think a never Trumper is pragmatic and knows that voting for Amash helps Trump. IF a person hates Trump, they will vote for Biden. I think Amash gives those that were inclined NOT to vote, a reason to go vote. I really dont' see Amash as a risk to Biden. He's a nobody outside of Michigan. My hope is that he pulls Republican votes in Michigan.
Yeah that's definitely possible. Ultimately he's not going to factor much into the equation.
Under normal circumstances, I'd actually consider a protest vote in his direction. Alas, these are anything but normal circumstances.
i think amash is a plant by the trump administration.
amash voted to impeach and he left the gop. trump is going to extend an olive branch and squash the beef, and right wing media is going to say "see, trump holds no ill will against him, how presidential." they will join forces to beat "the radical left". it will also be the "you don't change presidents during wartime" strategy, and amash will bring his tea party bona fides to help reel in the never trumpers within the gop. just watch.
This is not going to happen but I will give you full credit if it does
Trumps game plan last time was to drag the opponents favorables down to his level then have plausible third party options for disgusted voters.
Source for this. Show the receipts.
There's no source. We're on to day 2 of conspiracy theories.
C'mon, you don't need a source for this other than your eyes. Trump always has to sew distrust and negativity. That gives him the ability to say he's no worse than the next guy. It's the only way.
Are you reading the same post I'm reading? You believe the Libertarian Party has any coordination with Trump?
when has there ever been a successful libertarian candidate? when have libertarians won on any of their ideas? they are a novelty party that basically wanted legal weed. now that they have it in some states, their ideas are basically pipe dreams. that ayn rand shit will never ever work in any reality.
^continued.. ►The Larry King call. Last week, new "evidence" surfaced: a recorded call by an anonymous woman to CNN's "Larry King Live" show in 1993. Reade says the caller was her mother, who's now deceased. Assuming Reade is correct, her mother said: "I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him."
As a prosecutor, this would not make me happy. Given that the call was anonymous, Reade’s mother should have felt comfortable relaying the worst version of events. When trying to obtain someone’s assistance, people typically do not downplay the seriousness of an incident. They exaggerate it. That Reade’s mother said nothing about her daughter being sexually assaulted would lead many reasonable people to conclude that sexual assault was not the problem that prompted the call to King.
Reade’s mother also said her daughter did not go to the press with her problem “out of respect” for the senator. I’ve never met a woman who stayed silent out of “respect” for the man who sexually assaulted her. And it is inconceivable that a mother would learn of her daughter’s sexual assault and suggest that respect for the assailant is what stands between a life of painful silence and justice.
The "out of respect" explanation sounds more like an office squabble with staff that resulted in leaving the job. Indeed, in last year's interview with The Washington Post, Reade laid the blame on Biden’s staff for “bullying” her. She also said, “I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him.”
►Statements to others. Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, told The Post recently that he remembers Reade telling him Biden inappropriately touched her neck and shoulders. He said nothing about a sexual assault until a few days later, when he texted The Post that he remembered Reade saying Biden put his hand "under her clothes.”
That Reade’s brother neglected to remember the most important part of her allegation initially could lead people to believe he recounted his Post interview to Reade, was told he left out the most important part, and texted it to The Post to avoid a discussion about why he failed to mention it in the first place.
In interviews with The Times, one friend of Reade’s said Reade told her she was sexually assaulted by Biden. Another friend said Reade told her that Biden touched her inappropriately. Both friends insisted that The Times maintain their anonymity.
On Monday, Business Insider published an interview with a friend of Reade’s who said that in 1995 or 1996, Reade told her she was assaulted by Biden. Insider called this friend, Lynda LaCasse, the “first person to independently corroborate, in detail and on the record, that Reade had told others about her assault allegations contemporaneously.”
But Reade alleged she was assaulted in 1993. Telling a friend two or three years later is not contemporaneous. Legal references to a contemporaneous recounting typically refer to hours or days — the point being that facts are still fresh in a person's mind and the statement is more likely to be accurate.
The Insider also quoted a colleague of Reade’s in the mid-1990s, Lorraine Sanchez, who said Reade told her she had been sexually harassed by a former boss. Reade did not mention Biden by name and did not provide details of the alleged harassment.
In prior interviews, Reade gave what appeared be an exhaustive list of people she told of the alleged assault. Neither of the women who talked to Business Insider were on that list.
The problem with statements from friends is that the information they recount is only as good as the information given to them. Let’s say Reade left her job because she was angry about being asked to serve drinks or because she was fired for a legitimate reason. If she tried to save face by telling friends that she left because she was sexually assaulted, that’s all her friends would know and all they could repeat.
Prior statements made by a sexual assault victim can carry some weight, but only if the accuser is credible. In Reade’s case, the statements coming from her friends are only of value if people believe Reade can be relied on to tell the truth, regardless of the light in which it paints her.
►Lack of other sexual assault allegations. Last year, several women claimed that Biden made them uncomfortable with things like a shoulder touch or a hug. (I wrote a column critical of one such allegation by Lucy Flores.) The Times and Postfound no allegation of sexual assault against Biden except Reade's.
It is possible that in his 77 years, Biden committed one sexual assault and it was against Reade. But in my experience, men who commit a sexual assault are accused more than once ... like Donald Trump, who has had more than a dozen allegations of sexual assault leveled against him and who was recorded bragging about grabbing women’s genitalia.
►What remains. There are no third-party eyewitnesses or videos to support Tara Reade’s allegation that she was assaulted by Joe Biden. No one but Reade and Biden know whether an assault occurred. This is typical of sexual assault allegations. Jurors, in this case the voting public, have to consider the facts and circumstances to assess whether Reade’s allegation is credible. To do that, they have to determine whether Reade herself is believable.
I’ve dreaded writing this piece because I do not want it to be used as a guidebook to dismantling legitimate allegations of sexual assault. But not every claim of sexual assault is legitimate. During almost three decades as a prosecutor, I can remember dismissing two cases because I felt the defendant had not committed the charged crime. One of those cases was a rape charge.
The facts of that case made me question the credibility of the woman who claimed she was raped. In the end, she acknowledged that she fabricated the allegation after her boyfriend caught her with a man with whom she was having an affair.
I know that “Believe Women” is the mantra of the new decade. It is a response to a century of ignoring and excusing men’s sexual assaults against women. But men and women alike should not be forced to blindly accept every allegation of sexual assault for fear of being labeled a misogynist or enabler.
We can support the #MeToo movement and not support allegations of sexual assault that do not ring true. If these two positions cannot coexist, the movement is no more than a hit squad. That’s not how I see the #MeToo movement. It’s too important, for too many victims of sexual assault and their allies, to be no more than that.
I'm glad you posted this....I was actually going to open a new thread related to the sexual allegations using this article. I was reading it this morning and thought it was a great summary.
Her story just doesn't make sense. How does she go from stating that Biden just put his hands on her shoulder in one interview and then the penetration a few months later (once the story didn't blow up?).
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Great Amash backstory and interview here. If you've only been aware of him for a year or so, it provides a lot of context. Pulled a couple relevant excerpts.
Obviously a Russian asset 🙄. I mean a Trump spoiler candidate, I mean a person with some realistic views about our current hyper partisan political system.
Oh and I keep seeing the "what libertarian policies" question come up and two recent ones I'd point to that the LP has advocated for years and years before Rs and Ds are:
- Weed legalization, which is tons of jobs and revenue - Marriage equality, which needs no other context
As a lifelong independent, I cannot overstate how much of a turnoff it is to hear Democrats constantly whining about other candidates being on the ballot.I understand the concern in the context of a Jill Stein or a Bernie third party run, but to hear the same laments about a former REPUBLICAN congressman who famously and publicly broke with Trump is over the top. Who are these left-leaning voters who are going to abandon Biden and flock to Amash? Why would anyone who was ever going to vote for Biden in the first place do that? It is much more likely that Amash will peel right-leaning voters disgusted with Trump away from him.
^continued.. ►The Larry King call. Last week, new "evidence" surfaced: a recorded call by an anonymous woman to CNN's "Larry King Live" show in 1993. Reade says the caller was her mother, who's now deceased. Assuming Reade is correct, her mother said: "I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him."
As a prosecutor, this would not make me happy. Given that the call was anonymous, Reade’s mother should have felt comfortable relaying the worst version of events. When trying to obtain someone’s assistance, people typically do not downplay the seriousness of an incident. They exaggerate it. That Reade’s mother said nothing about her daughter being sexually assaulted would lead many reasonable people to conclude that sexual assault was not the problem that prompted the call to King.
Reade’s mother also said her daughter did not go to the press with her problem “out of respect” for the senator. I’ve never met a woman who stayed silent out of “respect” for the man who sexually assaulted her. And it is inconceivable that a mother would learn of her daughter’s sexual assault and suggest that respect for the assailant is what stands between a life of painful silence and justice.
The "out of respect" explanation sounds more like an office squabble with staff that resulted in leaving the job. Indeed, in last year's interview with The Washington Post, Reade laid the blame on Biden’s staff for “bullying” her. She also said, “I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him.”
►Statements to others. Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, told The Post recently that he remembers Reade telling him Biden inappropriately touched her neck and shoulders. He said nothing about a sexual assault until a few days later, when he texted The Post that he remembered Reade saying Biden put his hand "under her clothes.”
That Reade’s brother neglected to remember the most important part of her allegation initially could lead people to believe he recounted his Post interview to Reade, was told he left out the most important part, and texted it to The Post to avoid a discussion about why he failed to mention it in the first place.
In interviews with The Times, one friend of Reade’s said Reade told her she was sexually assaulted by Biden. Another friend said Reade told her that Biden touched her inappropriately. Both friends insisted that The Times maintain their anonymity.
On Monday, Business Insider published an interview with a friend of Reade’s who said that in 1995 or 1996, Reade told her she was assaulted by Biden. Insider called this friend, Lynda LaCasse, the “first person to independently corroborate, in detail and on the record, that Reade had told others about her assault allegations contemporaneously.”
But Reade alleged she was assaulted in 1993. Telling a friend two or three years later is not contemporaneous. Legal references to a contemporaneous recounting typically refer to hours or days — the point being that facts are still fresh in a person's mind and the statement is more likely to be accurate.
The Insider also quoted a colleague of Reade’s in the mid-1990s, Lorraine Sanchez, who said Reade told her she had been sexually harassed by a former boss. Reade did not mention Biden by name and did not provide details of the alleged harassment.
In prior interviews, Reade gave what appeared be an exhaustive list of people she told of the alleged assault. Neither of the women who talked to Business Insider were on that list.
The problem with statements from friends is that the information they recount is only as good as the information given to them. Let’s say Reade left her job because she was angry about being asked to serve drinks or because she was fired for a legitimate reason. If she tried to save face by telling friends that she left because she was sexually assaulted, that’s all her friends would know and all they could repeat.
Prior statements made by a sexual assault victim can carry some weight, but only if the accuser is credible. In Reade’s case, the statements coming from her friends are only of value if people believe Reade can be relied on to tell the truth, regardless of the light in which it paints her.
►Lack of other sexual assault allegations. Last year, several women claimed that Biden made them uncomfortable with things like a shoulder touch or a hug. (I wrote a column critical of one such allegation by Lucy Flores.) The Times and Postfound no allegation of sexual assault against Biden except Reade's.
It is possible that in his 77 years, Biden committed one sexual assault and it was against Reade. But in my experience, men who commit a sexual assault are accused more than once ... like Donald Trump, who has had more than a dozen allegations of sexual assault leveled against him and who was recorded bragging about grabbing women’s genitalia.
►What remains. There are no third-party eyewitnesses or videos to support Tara Reade’s allegation that she was assaulted by Joe Biden. No one but Reade and Biden know whether an assault occurred. This is typical of sexual assault allegations. Jurors, in this case the voting public, have to consider the facts and circumstances to assess whether Reade’s allegation is credible. To do that, they have to determine whether Reade herself is believable.
I’ve dreaded writing this piece because I do not want it to be used as a guidebook to dismantling legitimate allegations of sexual assault. But not every claim of sexual assault is legitimate. During almost three decades as a prosecutor, I can remember dismissing two cases because I felt the defendant had not committed the charged crime. One of those cases was a rape charge.
The facts of that case made me question the credibility of the woman who claimed she was raped. In the end, she acknowledged that she fabricated the allegation after her boyfriend caught her with a man with whom she was having an affair.
I know that “Believe Women” is the mantra of the new decade. It is a response to a century of ignoring and excusing men’s sexual assaults against women. But men and women alike should not be forced to blindly accept every allegation of sexual assault for fear of being labeled a misogynist or enabler.
We can support the #MeToo movement and not support allegations of sexual assault that do not ring true. If these two positions cannot coexist, the movement is no more than a hit squad. That’s not how I see the #MeToo movement. It’s too important, for too many victims of sexual assault and their allies, to be no more than that.
I'm glad you posted this....I was actually going to open a new thread related to the sexual allegations using this article. I was reading it this morning and thought it was a great summary.
Her story just doesn't make sense. How does she go from stating that Biden just put his hands on her shoulder in one interview and then the penetration a few months later (once the story didn't blow up?).
You are welcome. There’s a reason it’s not a story that’s dominating the news...and it’s not for the reason’s those on the far right and far left are whining about.
Oh and I keep seeing the "what libertarian policies" question come up and two recent ones I'd point to that the LP has advocated for years and years before Rs and Ds are:
- Weed legalization, which is tons of jobs and revenue - Marriage equality, which needs no other context
Everyone always rolls their eyes at libertarians and weed but it comes up a lot because legalization hits a lot of different boxes:
- Economic growth - Fewer nonviolent incarcerations - Violent crime reduction - Freedom to partake in a harmless activity Edit: - Non-opioid-based pain relief
So the LP has been completely powerless for years and years and unable to actually effectuate any change? So what if they were there first? What good does that do?
I like to point out that progressive/democrats are also currently in favor of all of these policies. Better late than never.
And D's have a party in position to actually make it happen. At least we were until a bunch of lifetime judge appointments were handed to conservatives.
^continued.. ►The Larry King call. Last week, new "evidence" surfaced: a recorded call by an anonymous woman to CNN's "Larry King Live" show in 1993. Reade says the caller was her mother, who's now deceased. Assuming Reade is correct, her mother said: "I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him."
As a prosecutor, this would not make me happy. Given that the call was anonymous, Reade’s mother should have felt comfortable relaying the worst version of events. When trying to obtain someone’s assistance, people typically do not downplay the seriousness of an incident. They exaggerate it. That Reade’s mother said nothing about her daughter being sexually assaulted would lead many reasonable people to conclude that sexual assault was not the problem that prompted the call to King.
Reade’s mother also said her daughter did not go to the press with her problem “out of respect” for the senator. I’ve never met a woman who stayed silent out of “respect” for the man who sexually assaulted her. And it is inconceivable that a mother would learn of her daughter’s sexual assault and suggest that respect for the assailant is what stands between a life of painful silence and justice.
The "out of respect" explanation sounds more like an office squabble with staff that resulted in leaving the job. Indeed, in last year's interview with The Washington Post, Reade laid the blame on Biden’s staff for “bullying” her. She also said, “I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him.”
►Statements to others. Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, told The Post recently that he remembers Reade telling him Biden inappropriately touched her neck and shoulders. He said nothing about a sexual assault until a few days later, when he texted The Post that he remembered Reade saying Biden put his hand "under her clothes.”
That Reade’s brother neglected to remember the most important part of her allegation initially could lead people to believe he recounted his Post interview to Reade, was told he left out the most important part, and texted it to The Post to avoid a discussion about why he failed to mention it in the first place.
In interviews with The Times, one friend of Reade’s said Reade told her she was sexually assaulted by Biden. Another friend said Reade told her that Biden touched her inappropriately. Both friends insisted that The Times maintain their anonymity.
On Monday, Business Insider published an interview with a friend of Reade’s who said that in 1995 or 1996, Reade told her she was assaulted by Biden. Insider called this friend, Lynda LaCasse, the “first person to independently corroborate, in detail and on the record, that Reade had told others about her assault allegations contemporaneously.”
But Reade alleged she was assaulted in 1993. Telling a friend two or three years later is not contemporaneous. Legal references to a contemporaneous recounting typically refer to hours or days — the point being that facts are still fresh in a person's mind and the statement is more likely to be accurate.
The Insider also quoted a colleague of Reade’s in the mid-1990s, Lorraine Sanchez, who said Reade told her she had been sexually harassed by a former boss. Reade did not mention Biden by name and did not provide details of the alleged harassment.
In prior interviews, Reade gave what appeared be an exhaustive list of people she told of the alleged assault. Neither of the women who talked to Business Insider were on that list.
The problem with statements from friends is that the information they recount is only as good as the information given to them. Let’s say Reade left her job because she was angry about being asked to serve drinks or because she was fired for a legitimate reason. If she tried to save face by telling friends that she left because she was sexually assaulted, that’s all her friends would know and all they could repeat.
Prior statements made by a sexual assault victim can carry some weight, but only if the accuser is credible. In Reade’s case, the statements coming from her friends are only of value if people believe Reade can be relied on to tell the truth, regardless of the light in which it paints her.
►Lack of other sexual assault allegations. Last year, several women claimed that Biden made them uncomfortable with things like a shoulder touch or a hug. (I wrote a column critical of one such allegation by Lucy Flores.) The Times and Postfound no allegation of sexual assault against Biden except Reade's.
It is possible that in his 77 years, Biden committed one sexual assault and it was against Reade. But in my experience, men who commit a sexual assault are accused more than once ... like Donald Trump, who has had more than a dozen allegations of sexual assault leveled against him and who was recorded bragging about grabbing women’s genitalia.
►What remains. There are no third-party eyewitnesses or videos to support Tara Reade’s allegation that she was assaulted by Joe Biden. No one but Reade and Biden know whether an assault occurred. This is typical of sexual assault allegations. Jurors, in this case the voting public, have to consider the facts and circumstances to assess whether Reade’s allegation is credible. To do that, they have to determine whether Reade herself is believable.
I’ve dreaded writing this piece because I do not want it to be used as a guidebook to dismantling legitimate allegations of sexual assault. But not every claim of sexual assault is legitimate. During almost three decades as a prosecutor, I can remember dismissing two cases because I felt the defendant had not committed the charged crime. One of those cases was a rape charge.
The facts of that case made me question the credibility of the woman who claimed she was raped. In the end, she acknowledged that she fabricated the allegation after her boyfriend caught her with a man with whom she was having an affair.
I know that “Believe Women” is the mantra of the new decade. It is a response to a century of ignoring and excusing men’s sexual assaults against women. But men and women alike should not be forced to blindly accept every allegation of sexual assault for fear of being labeled a misogynist or enabler.
We can support the #MeToo movement and not support allegations of sexual assault that do not ring true. If these two positions cannot coexist, the movement is no more than a hit squad. That’s not how I see the #MeToo movement. It’s too important, for too many victims of sexual assault and their allies, to be no more than that.
Everyone always rolls their eyes at libertarians and weed but it comes up a lot because legalization hits a lot of different boxes:
- Economic growth - Fewer nonviolent incarcerations - Violent crime reduction - Freedom to partake in a harmless activity Edit: - Non-opioid-based pain relief
Where did he land on the CARES act?
Opposed, but I think voted Present. All the reasons you might imagine - slow, unwieldy, too much unrelated stuff, too many corporate handouts.
He advocates for a clean bill that would have sent $2,400 to every person monthly for 3 months, with potential renewal for another 3 depending on where things are at. Handle separate issues separately.
Great Amash backstory and interview here. If you've only been aware of him for a year or so, it provides a lot of context. Pulled a couple relevant excerpts.
^continued.. ►The Larry King call. Last week, new "evidence" surfaced: a recorded call by an anonymous woman to CNN's "Larry King Live" show in 1993. Reade says the caller was her mother, who's now deceased. Assuming Reade is correct, her mother said: "I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him."
As a prosecutor, this would not make me happy. Given that the call was anonymous, Reade’s mother should have felt comfortable relaying the worst version of events. When trying to obtain someone’s assistance, people typically do not downplay the seriousness of an incident. They exaggerate it. That Reade’s mother said nothing about her daughter being sexually assaulted would lead many reasonable people to conclude that sexual assault was not the problem that prompted the call to King.
Reade’s mother also said her daughter did not go to the press with her problem “out of respect” for the senator. I’ve never met a woman who stayed silent out of “respect” for the man who sexually assaulted her. And it is inconceivable that a mother would learn of her daughter’s sexual assault and suggest that respect for the assailant is what stands between a life of painful silence and justice.
The "out of respect" explanation sounds more like an office squabble with staff that resulted in leaving the job. Indeed, in last year's interview with The Washington Post, Reade laid the blame on Biden’s staff for “bullying” her. She also said, “I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him.”
►Statements to others. Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, told The Post recently that he remembers Reade telling him Biden inappropriately touched her neck and shoulders. He said nothing about a sexual assault until a few days later, when he texted The Post that he remembered Reade saying Biden put his hand "under her clothes.”
That Reade’s brother neglected to remember the most important part of her allegation initially could lead people to believe he recounted his Post interview to Reade, was told he left out the most important part, and texted it to The Post to avoid a discussion about why he failed to mention it in the first place.
In interviews with The Times, one friend of Reade’s said Reade told her she was sexually assaulted by Biden. Another friend said Reade told her that Biden touched her inappropriately. Both friends insisted that The Times maintain their anonymity.
On Monday, Business Insider published an interview with a friend of Reade’s who said that in 1995 or 1996, Reade told her she was assaulted by Biden. Insider called this friend, Lynda LaCasse, the “first person to independently corroborate, in detail and on the record, that Reade had told others about her assault allegations contemporaneously.”
But Reade alleged she was assaulted in 1993. Telling a friend two or three years later is not contemporaneous. Legal references to a contemporaneous recounting typically refer to hours or days — the point being that facts are still fresh in a person's mind and the statement is more likely to be accurate.
The Insider also quoted a colleague of Reade’s in the mid-1990s, Lorraine Sanchez, who said Reade told her she had been sexually harassed by a former boss. Reade did not mention Biden by name and did not provide details of the alleged harassment.
In prior interviews, Reade gave what appeared be an exhaustive list of people she told of the alleged assault. Neither of the women who talked to Business Insider were on that list.
The problem with statements from friends is that the information they recount is only as good as the information given to them. Let’s say Reade left her job because she was angry about being asked to serve drinks or because she was fired for a legitimate reason. If she tried to save face by telling friends that she left because she was sexually assaulted, that’s all her friends would know and all they could repeat.
Prior statements made by a sexual assault victim can carry some weight, but only if the accuser is credible. In Reade’s case, the statements coming from her friends are only of value if people believe Reade can be relied on to tell the truth, regardless of the light in which it paints her.
►Lack of other sexual assault allegations. Last year, several women claimed that Biden made them uncomfortable with things like a shoulder touch or a hug. (I wrote a column critical of one such allegation by Lucy Flores.) The Times and Postfound no allegation of sexual assault against Biden except Reade's.
It is possible that in his 77 years, Biden committed one sexual assault and it was against Reade. But in my experience, men who commit a sexual assault are accused more than once ... like Donald Trump, who has had more than a dozen allegations of sexual assault leveled against him and who was recorded bragging about grabbing women’s genitalia.
►What remains. There are no third-party eyewitnesses or videos to support Tara Reade’s allegation that she was assaulted by Joe Biden. No one but Reade and Biden know whether an assault occurred. This is typical of sexual assault allegations. Jurors, in this case the voting public, have to consider the facts and circumstances to assess whether Reade’s allegation is credible. To do that, they have to determine whether Reade herself is believable.
I’ve dreaded writing this piece because I do not want it to be used as a guidebook to dismantling legitimate allegations of sexual assault. But not every claim of sexual assault is legitimate. During almost three decades as a prosecutor, I can remember dismissing two cases because I felt the defendant had not committed the charged crime. One of those cases was a rape charge.
The facts of that case made me question the credibility of the woman who claimed she was raped. In the end, she acknowledged that she fabricated the allegation after her boyfriend caught her with a man with whom she was having an affair.
I know that “Believe Women” is the mantra of the new decade. It is a response to a century of ignoring and excusing men’s sexual assaults against women. But men and women alike should not be forced to blindly accept every allegation of sexual assault for fear of being labeled a misogynist or enabler.
We can support the #MeToo movement and not support allegations of sexual assault that do not ring true. If these two positions cannot coexist, the movement is no more than a hit squad. That’s not how I see the #MeToo movement. It’s too important, for too many victims of sexual assault and their allies, to be no more than that.
I'm glad you posted this....I was actually going to open a new thread related to the sexual allegations using this article. I was reading it this morning and thought it was a great summary.
Her story just doesn't make sense. How does she go from stating that Biden just put his hands on her shoulder in one interview and then the penetration a few months later (once the story didn't blow up?).
You are welcome. There’s a reason it’s not a story that’s dominating the news...and it’s not for the reason’s those on the far right and far left are whining about.
It's almost like some of those demands that Biden address this weren't made in good faith.
As a lifelong independent, I cannot overstate how much of a turnoff it is to hear Democrats constantly whining about other candidates being on the ballot.I understand the concern in the context of a Jill Stein or a Bernie third party run, but to hear the same laments about a former REPUBLICAN congressman who famously and publicly broke with Trump is over the top. Who are these left-leaning voters who are going to abandon Biden and flock to Amash? Why would anyone who was ever going to vote for Biden in the first place do that? It is much more likely that Amash will peel right-leaning voters disgusted with Trump away from him.
Those 12% of Bernie of 2016 primary voter dems?
It’s very likely that those 12% wouldn’t have even made an effort if Bernie hadn’t been in the race. It’s so annoying hearing over and over that the Democratic Party’s failures aren’t their own.
As a lifelong independent, I cannot overstate how much of a turnoff it is to hear Democrats constantly whining about other candidates being on the ballot.I understand the concern in the context of a Jill Stein or a Bernie third party run, but to hear the same laments about a former REPUBLICAN congressman who famously and publicly broke with Trump is over the top. Who are these left-leaning voters who are going to abandon Biden and flock to Amash? Why would anyone who was ever going to vote for Biden in the first place do that? It is much more likely that Amash will peel right-leaning voters disgusted with Trump away from him.
Those 12% of Bernie of 2016 primary voter dems?
You're making a huge assumption that those voters would have ever voted for Biden. One that I don't agree with.
chris hayes reported on the biden accusations last night. now firechrishayes is trending number 1 on twitter.
And who are those that are "pushing" #firechrishayes? Putin on the ritz? Or legitimate, real life Sleepy Woke Joe supporters? Or real "dem" Bernie supporters?
Social media never influenced anyone to vote, ever.
As a lifelong independent, I cannot overstate how much of a turnoff it is to hear Democrats constantly whining about other candidates being on the ballot.I understand the concern in the context of a Jill Stein or a Bernie third party run, but to hear the same laments about a former REPUBLICAN congressman who famously and publicly broke with Trump is over the top. Who are these left-leaning voters who are going to abandon Biden and flock to Amash? Why would anyone who was ever going to vote for Biden in the first place do that? It is much more likely that Amash will peel right-leaning voters disgusted with Trump away from him.
Those 12% of Bernie of 2016 primary voter dems?
You're making a huge assumption that those voters would have ever voted for Biden. One that I don't agree with.
Sorry, I should have put "dem" in quotes. That 12% voting for the sexual offender in chief is why we are where we are today. Thanks, "dems." How does a "dem" vote Bernie, then vote Team Trump Treason but not vote Biden? Unless they were never "dems" to begin with?
chris hayes reported on the biden accusations last night. now firechrishayes is trending number 1 on twitter.
And who are those that are "pushing" #firechrishayes? Putin on the ritz? Or legitimate, real life Sleepy Woke Joe supporters? Or real "dem" Bernie supporters?
Social media never influenced anyone to vote, ever.
But I thought evil Russian bots spread propaganda on American social media and that hurt Hillary in 2016. Well I guess we can scratch that off of Hillary’s excuse list, because social media never influenced anyone to vote ever.
chris hayes reported on the biden accusations last night. now firechrishayes is trending number 1 on twitter.
And who are those that are "pushing" #firechrishayes? Putin on the ritz? Or legitimate, real life Sleepy Woke Joe supporters? Or real "dem" Bernie supporters?
Social media never influenced anyone to vote, ever.
But I thought evil Russian bots spread propaganda on American social media and that hurt Hillary in 2016. Well I guess we can scratch that off of Hillary’s excuse list, because social media never influenced anyone to vote ever.
hillary won the popular vote by over 3 million.
there is documented evidence that coordinated russian troll farms did influence the 2016 election. the gop committee chairpeople are even saying so.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
chris hayes reported on the biden accusations last night. now firechrishayes is trending number 1 on twitter.
And who are those that are "pushing" #firechrishayes? Putin on the ritz? Or legitimate, real life Sleepy Woke Joe supporters? Or real "dem" Bernie supporters?
Social media never influenced anyone to vote, ever.
But I thought evil Russian bots spread propaganda on American social media and that hurt Hillary in 2016. Well I guess we can scratch that off of Hillary’s excuse list, because social media never influenced anyone to vote ever.
hillary won the popular vote by over 3 million.
there is documented evidence that coordinated russian troll farms did influence the 2016 election. the gop committee chairpeople are even saying so.
I know. I’m saying how can Halifax say social media doesn’t influence voters when he’s one of the more vocal people here about Russian influence on our elections.
Oh and I keep seeing the "what libertarian policies" question come up and two recent ones I'd point to that the LP has advocated for years and years before Rs and Ds are:
- Weed legalization, which is tons of jobs and revenue - Marriage equality, which needs no other context
Admittedly, it's anecdotal but my experience with those who claim to be libertarian is that they are just Republicans...they liked W, the LOVE Trump and they care about owning the libs.
And the candidates seem to understand that they need to get some of the conservative base...so with marriage, it's usually the great cop-out of "get government out of marriage," which technically doesn't discriminate, but also doesn't force them to advocate for gay partnerships. And, of course, they're all pro-birth.
There's no question that the libertarians I encountered early on (i.e., local/state elections) were absolutely early to the party regarding weed legalization. But the bigger the scale (i.e., local---state---national) the election, the more they tend to become Republicans. Ultimately, they're on the right and even the ones that do hold some of the liberal social views allow the reduction of taxes and elimination of safety nets and regulations to trump (er, Trump) those.
20 years ago, I actually thought the libertarian ideal would be a major player by now. But ultimately, the right is united (they even had an event in Charlottesville, VA) and to be effective, the need the religious right and the kleptocrats to be successful. So they're almost the "social democrat" wing of the GOP...but I don't think they vote against their own interest to spite the moderates the way the Bernie Bros do.
Post edited by OnWis97 on
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
chris hayes reported on the biden accusations last night. now firechrishayes is trending number 1 on twitter.
And who are those that are "pushing" #firechrishayes? Putin on the ritz? Or legitimate, real life Sleepy Woke Joe supporters? Or real "dem" Bernie supporters?
Social media never influenced anyone to vote, ever.
But I thought evil Russian bots spread propaganda on American social media and that hurt Hillary in 2016. Well I guess we can scratch that off of Hillary’s excuse list, because social media never influenced anyone to vote ever.
hillary won the popular vote by over 3 million.
there is documented evidence that coordinated russian troll farms did influence the 2016 election. the gop committee chairpeople are even saying so.
I know. I’m saying how can Halifax say social media doesn’t influence voters when he’s one of the more vocal people here about Russian influence on our elections.
Because I was told that by some posters on here, despite my posting numerous fact based links to the contrary. Have you forgotten where I've stood for the past 5 years? Did I forget the thing all the kids are using? /s or is it s/? My apologies.
chris hayes reported on the biden accusations last night. now firechrishayes is trending number 1 on twitter.
And who are those that are "pushing" #firechrishayes? Putin on the ritz? Or legitimate, real life Sleepy Woke Joe supporters? Or real "dem" Bernie supporters?
Social media never influenced anyone to vote, ever.
But I thought evil Russian bots spread propaganda on American social media and that hurt Hillary in 2016. Well I guess we can scratch that off of Hillary’s excuse list, because social media never influenced anyone to vote ever.
hillary won the popular vote by over 3 million.
there is documented evidence that coordinated russian troll farms did influence the 2016 election. the gop committee chairpeople are even saying so.
I know. I’m saying how can Halifax say social media doesn’t influence voters when he’s one of the more vocal people here about Russian influence on our elections.
Because I was told that by some posters on here, despite my posting numerous fact based links to the contrary. Have you forgotten where I've stood for the past 5 years? Did I forget the thing all the kids are using? /s or is it s/? My apologies.
No clue what the bolded part is supposed to mean. But yeah, what was I thinking. Of course you're saying that Russian trolls are causing Hayes to trend.
Everyone always rolls their eyes at libertarians and weed but it comes up a lot because legalization hits a lot of different boxes:
- Economic growth - Fewer nonviolent incarcerations - Violent crime reduction - Freedom to partake in a harmless activity Edit: - Non-opioid-based pain relief
And I am absolutely with this. Both parties (a phrase I rarely use anymore) have blame for the costly and unnecessary incarcerations and violence connected with pot being illegal. FWIW, the social libertarian in me thinks all drugs should be legal for some of these reasons, though weed's a great place to start.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
chris hayes reported on the biden accusations last night. now firechrishayes is trending number 1 on twitter.
And who are those that are "pushing" #firechrishayes? Putin on the ritz? Or legitimate, real life Sleepy Woke Joe supporters? Or real "dem" Bernie supporters?
Social media never influenced anyone to vote, ever.
I think it's a fair question...the right in this country is united primary by one thing: demonizing others; and the domestic left is probably the great enemy they have right now. They can be far more successful in selling the left as hypocrites than they can be talking about anything related to the actual candidates.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Oh and I keep seeing the "what libertarian policies" question come up and two recent ones I'd point to that the LP has advocated for years and years before Rs and Ds are:
- Weed legalization, which is tons of jobs and revenue - Marriage equality, which needs no other context
Admittedly, it's anecdotal but my experience with those who claim to be libertarian is that they are just Republicans...they liked W, the LOVE Trump and they care about owning the libs.
And the candidates seem to understand that they need to get some of the conservative base...so with marriage, it's usually the great cop-out of "get government out of marriage," which technically doesn't discriminate, but also doesn't force them to advocate for gay partnerships. And, of course, they're all pro-birth.
There's no question that the libertarians I encountered early on (i.e., local/state elections) were absolutely early to the party regarding weed legalization. But the bigger the scale (i.e., local---state---national) the election, the more they tend to become Republicans. Ultimately, they're on the right and even the ones that do hold some of the liberal social views allow the reduction of taxes and elimination of safety nets and regulations to trump (er, Trump) those.
20 years ago, I actually thought the libertarian ideal would be a major player by now. But ultimately, the right is united (they even had an event in Charlottesville, VA) and to be effective, the need the religious right and the kleptocrats to be successful. So they're almost the "social democrat" wing of the GOP...but I don't think they vote against their own interest to spite the moderates the way the Bernie Bros do.
First off, there are definitely pro-Trump "libertarians." I've long ago given up arguing ideological titles. That is not a libertarian position to me, but people can call themselves whatever they want.
There are also definitely libertarians who skirt the marriage equality issue exactly how you describe. It's the Ron Paul move. Total cop-out as far as I'm concerned. On abortion, they are not all pro-birth. It's about as split as you'll see an issue with libertarians.
If you want to see the form of libertarianism I identify with, the easiest suggestion I can make is to follow Reason magazine. In terms of candidates, scrutinize them like you would any party. Voting D gives you different outcomes whether it's Bernie or Biden. Same with Rs and Trump vs. Romney. No different with Ls. Justin Amash is as close to my ideal candidate as I've ever had the opportunity to vote for.
Speaking of things trending, "Joe Biden is Joe Biden" is trending now because that's what Pelosi said in regards to his allegation Like "Joe's gonna be Joe" in nature. The Dems just seem to get in their own way. You already have a likely baseless (or at least unprovable) allegation against Biden that really isn't much to worry about. But she can't help but put her foot in her mouth.
Comments
Under normal circumstances, I'd actually consider a protest vote in his direction. Alas, these are anything but normal circumstances.
Her story just doesn't make sense. How does she go from stating that Biden just put his hands on her shoulder in one interview and then the penetration a few months later (once the story didn't blow up?).
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
- Weed legalization, which is tons of jobs and revenue
- Marriage equality, which needs no other context
- Economic growth
- Fewer nonviolent incarcerations
- Violent crime reduction
- Freedom to partake in a harmless activity
Edit: - Non-opioid-based pain relief
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So the LP has been completely powerless for years and years and unable to actually effectuate any change? So what if they were there first? What good does that do?
I like to point out that progressive/democrats are also currently in favor of all of these policies. Better late than never.
And D's have a party in position to actually make it happen. At least we were until a bunch of lifetime judge appointments were handed to conservatives.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
He advocates for a clean bill that would have sent $2,400 to every person monthly for 3 months, with potential renewal for another 3 depending on where things are at. Handle separate issues separately.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It's almost like some of those demands that Biden address this weren't made in good faith.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Social media never influenced anyone to vote, ever.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
there is documented evidence that coordinated russian troll farms did influence the 2016 election. the gop committee chairpeople are even saying so.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
And I am absolutely with this. Both parties (a phrase I rarely use anymore) have blame for the costly and unnecessary incarcerations and violence connected with pot being illegal. FWIW, the social libertarian in me thinks all drugs should be legal for some of these reasons, though weed's a great place to start.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I think it's a fair question...the right in this country is united primary by one thing: demonizing others; and the domestic left is probably the great enemy they have right now. They can be far more successful in selling the left as hypocrites than they can be talking about anything related to the actual candidates.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
There are also definitely libertarians who skirt the marriage equality issue exactly how you describe. It's the Ron Paul move. Total cop-out as far as I'm concerned. On abortion, they are not all pro-birth. It's about as split as you'll see an issue with libertarians.
If you want to see the form of libertarianism I identify with, the easiest suggestion I can make is to follow Reason magazine. In terms of candidates, scrutinize them like you would any party. Voting D gives you different outcomes whether it's Bernie or Biden. Same with Rs and Trump vs. Romney. No different with Ls. Justin Amash is as close to my ideal candidate as I've ever had the opportunity to vote for.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com