Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Jimmy Higgins]

Someone accused Dr. Fauci of sexual assault? Am I the only one that didn't know that?

 

[Emily Lake]

Someone accused Dr. Fauci of sexual assault? Am I the only one that didn't know that?

You are not alone in that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Someone accused Dr. Fauci of sexual assault? Am I the only one that didn't know that?

You are not alone in that.

Trump operatives. For something so petty as he didn't always agree with or tow the party line on the devastating and world-known effects of the Trump virus. So, imagine what these worthless pieces of shit would do to a Democratic challenger. Oh, wait, we don't have to, because they already did it to Buttigieg.

Enter Reade. No wonder the usual Trumplodites itt have been even more pathetically desperate than usual to obfuscate her changing story.

 

[Derec]

Someone accused Dr. Fauci of sexual assault? Am I the only one that didn't know that?

In the #metoo era, false sexual assault allegations, especially claiming things happened decades ago, are a potent weapon against political opponents such as Kavanaugh, Biden and Fauci.

But never mind. Women must always be believed, right?

 

[Derec]

So, to make it perfectly clear, you are seriously arguing that in 2012, Ford just decided out of the blue that she was going to some day publicly falsely accuse a completely innocent kid she went to high school with of having raped her, so she tells her husband and therapist during a couple's therapy session that she was raped by Kavanaugh. The only point of which is to lay a prior statement groundwork so that some day years into the undetermined future she might decide to falsely accuse him, should he ever be nominated to the SCOTUS.

It is very much possible yes. But in light of the fact (that I linked to in another post) that she changed the timeline of the supposed rape from mid-80s to 1982 to put Kav in the frame, it seems more likely she originally had someone else in mind. Whether that person really attacked her or she also planned to frame him - and then shifted her focus onto Kav, we probably will never know.

Not for any other purpose; just in case he would ever be nominated to SCOTUS.

A nasty scheme, yes, but hardly unbelievable.

And she lays down this years long false accusation plan against a completely innocent kid why? Because she is omniscient and knew one day a Trump-like incompetent President would nominate a completely innocent kid from her high school to the SCOTUS and in 2012 the very thought of such a possibility happening--a completely innocent kid from her high school--being nominated was presciently unbearable to her?

I think it was not about Kav personally but about him being a conservative jurist. Had she known Gorsuch, she'd just as easily have framed him.

 

[fromderinside]

So you might entertain a similar slant to Reade?

 

[Toni]

It is very much possible yes. But in light of the fact (that I linked to in another post) that she changed the timeline of the supposed rape from mid-80s to 1982 to put Kav in the frame, it seems more likely she originally had someone else in mind. Whether that person really attacked her or she also planned to frame him - and then shifted her focus onto Kav, we probably will never know.


A nasty scheme, yes, but hardly unbelievable.

And she lays down this years long false accusation plan against a completely innocent kid why? Because she is omniscient and knew one day a Trump-like incompetent President would nominate a completely innocent kid from her high school to the SCOTUS and in 2012 the very thought of such a possibility happening--a completely innocent kid from her high school--being nominated was presciently unbearable to her?

I think it was not about Kav personally but about him being a conservative jurist. Had she known Gorsuch, she'd just as easily have framed him.

Framed? So you acknowledge there was evidence against Kavanaugh? What about the other women? They're in on the conspiracy, too? And if it was such a frame job, then why was any investigation cut off, even though it was very cursory, at best? Why were other women not allowed to testify?

Even Reade isn't framing Biden. She's made some accusations which keep changing and which truly do seem politically motivated. But she hasn't 'framed' anyone.

 

[Derec]

Framed? So you acknowledge there was evidence against Kavanaugh?

Not outside the accusation itself. Even you people who believe CBF acknowledge that much, which is why you have to make so much hay out of her prior statements. There simply isn't any evidence that isn't something CBF has claimed.

What about the other women?

They have their own problems which we already talked about.

They're in on the conspiracy, too? And if it was such a frame job, then why was any investigation cut off, even though it was very cursory, at best?

I guess she didn't do a good enough job.

Why were other women not allowed to testify?

I do not know. I do not think 11th hour accusations clearly intended to derail a nomination are all that credible. Why did CBF wait until September? Why did the other women wait even longer? Why did one of them say she could not remember who behaved badly at the party until she spoke with her lawyer?

Even Reade isn't framing Biden. She's made some accusations which keep changing and which truly do seem politically motivated. But she hasn't 'framed' anyone.

Well, attempted frame-up. Just like CBF.

 

[Derec]

So you might entertain a similar slant to Reade?

I do not believe Raede either. It's just that because CBF accused a Republican, people like Koy and Toni believe her even though they do not Raede, as she is accusing a Democrat. Kind of like how there were all these hearings about Kav, but nary a hearing about Justin Fairfax, whose accusation happened about the same time. Funny how that goes.

 

[Rhea]

It's just that because CBF accused a Republican, people like Koy and Toni believe her even though they do not Raede, as she is accusing a Democrat.

Everyone else reading this thread can see myriad reasons why Koy and Toni (and many others) have articulated the difference between the two cases. There's no "just" about the volumes of evidence, precedent and analysis they've provided to support their position. We can all read it. They've been pretty meticulous in addressing all the differences.


You, on the other hand, ignore it all and make a claim about them that is clearly refuted by written evidence.

Your attempt to dismiss and pretend out of existence all the data they've presented is shallow and transparent.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, to make it perfectly clear, you are seriously arguing that in 2012, Ford just decided out of the blue that she was going to some day publicly falsely accuse a completely innocent kid she went to high school with of having raped her, so she tells her husband and therapist during a couple's therapy session that she was raped by Kavanaugh. The only point of which is to lay a prior statement groundwork so that some day years into the undetermined future she might decide to falsely accuse him, should he ever be nominated to the SCOTUS.

It is very much possible yes.

No, it is not in the slightest, but thank you for confirming what everyone already knew.

 

[Derec]

Everyone else reading this thread can see myriad reasons why Koy and Toni (and many others) have articulated the difference between the two cases. There's no "just" about the volumes of evidence,

There is no "volume of evidence". The whole case that CBF was raped is based on statements by CBF. And we know she changed the details of time, location and house layout. Her own friend Leland Keyser does not believe her. Why should we?

They've been pretty meticulous in addressing all the differences.

There are no meaningful differences.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There are no meaningful differences.

To you.

 

[Derec]

To you.

Unlike you, I do not view party identification as a "meaningful difference".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

To you.

Unlike you, I do not view party identification as a "meaningful difference".

Gosh, what a shock. You immediately resorted to an intellectually dishonest fallacy.

Tell us again how "possible" it is that a well respected professional woman would lay down the groundwork for a false rape accusation against a completely innocent man she went to highschool with--a man who had never done anything to her and she never interacted with--in a couple's therapy session, lying about it to her therapist and husband over several years in subsequent sessions dealing with a rape that never happened just in case at some point years in the indeterminate future that particular completely innocent man was ever nominated by a Republican president to the SCOTUS.

 

[Rhea]

Stay on topic, address the argument not the poster, stay on topic, address the argument, not the poster.

Derail posts moved to ~Elsewhere

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And now we see the real motive behind Reade's allegations: Pro-Trump group releasing new ad using audio of Tara Reade.

Snippets:

A super PAC supporting President Trump’s reelection campaign will release a new ad on Tuesday featuring audio clips from Tara Reade, who has accused former Vice President Joe Biden of sexual assault.

The Great America PAC is putting six figures behind the ad, which will run online first. The group plans to put more money behind it and to run it nationally on TV in the coming weeks.

The ad, which is called “Shattered,” plays audio of Reade recounting her allegations of assault over footage of Biden touching different women and girls.

“Tara Reade said Joe Biden sexually assaulted her,” text from the ad reads. “Democrats and the media are trying to ignore her chilling story. We won’t let them.”
...
She is the only woman to accuse Biden of assault.

Again, one wonders who this ad is geared toward. It certainly isn't Republicans.

 

[laughing dog]

To you.

Unlike you, I do not view party identification as a "meaningful difference".

Gosh, what a shock. You immediately resorted to an intellectually dishonest fallacy.

Tell us again how "possible" it is that a well respected professional woman would lay down the groundwork for a false rape accusation against a completely innocent man she went to highschool with--a man who had never done anything to her and she never interacted with--in a couple's therapy session, lying about it to her therapist and husband over several years in subsequent sessions dealing with a rape that never happened just in case at some point years in the indeterminate future that particular completely innocent man was ever nominated by a Republican president to the SCOTUS.

Koy - it is just effective risk management.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Gosh, what a shock. You immediately resorted to an intellectually dishonest fallacy.

Tell us again how "possible" it is that a well respected professional woman would lay down the groundwork for a false rape accusation against a completely innocent man she went to highschool with--a man who had never done anything to her and she never interacted with--in a couple's therapy session, lying about it to her therapist and husband over several years in subsequent sessions dealing with a rape that never happened just in case at some point years in the indeterminate future that particular completely innocent man was ever nominated by a Republican president to the SCOTUS.

Koy - it is just effective risk management.

Indeed. Eight years ago, I told my wife and therapist that someone I interacted with once on a discussion board tried to rape me irl, just in case the day ever came when an evil fucktard like Trump was placed into office and then one day during his term announces he's going to appoint Derec to head the FBI. That's how devious I am. And omniscient.

I didn't want to falsely accuse him right away, oh no! ONLY in case he one day eight years into the future were to ever be chosen by a conservative President to head the FBI. I mean, it's possible, right? So I only bank on distant future possibilities and very specfic contingencies for MY false accusation targets.

 

[Toni]

To you.

Unlike you, I do not view party identification as a "meaningful difference".

I think every single one of us has some unacknowledged biases that are coming into play here.

Truthfully I was unhappy that Biden entered the race. First up:he’s too old. Period. End of story. So is Trump. So is Sanders. All three men have serious medical events in their recent past. Trump shows obvious signs of serious mental decline, which may be due in part to rumored drug use—but it’s obviously present. He’s had some secret or ‘secret’visits to medical facilities and many suspect, some very serious health concerns. Biden also has significant medical history and a history of stuttering/speech impairment that makes it harder to tell if he is also experiencing mental decline or if it’s his stuttering or a combo. Sanders as well has serious medical events in recent history and imo, also shows signs that he has lost some of his mental acuity. IMO, all three should not be running. Their age makes them poor candidates.

To varying degrees, their age and the time they grew up as white males has given them, to differing degrees, out-dared to extremely offensive mindsets with regards to women and minorities. Their time is passed, IMO.

Biden is also tied very closely with Obama which, depending on whether you like Obama, is either positive or negative. I think he’s a decent man with some outmoded or at least easily misinterpreted ways of relating to women.

So Biden is not my top candidate. I’ll vote for him because he isn’t Trump but I am extremely disappointed that he got the nomination.

For reasons I’ve discussed at length, Reade’s allegations seem implausible. Not impossible but implausible. Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh seemed very plausible. Almost every woman has had a similar type of experience. As repugnant as that incident was, I was willing to attribute it to youthful immaturity coupled with over indulging in alcohol. But too many reports of Kavanaugh’s very heavy drinking—getting black out drunk have surfaced. Worse, he is reportedly a mean drunk. One could still attribute that to youth and certainly there have been years during which he could grow and mature. But I watched him during the hearings and his behavior is that of a drunk. Maybe a dry drunk but definitely a mean drunk. I don’t think he’s fit to serve on the bench of a small rural county court based solely on his demeanor and responses during his confirmation. Certainly not on the US Supreme Court.

Reade’s allegations against Biden seem implausible to me because they seem difficult to have actually been carried out. I’ve had semi-similar experiences but honestly it is not easy to push your hand up a woman’s business attire skirt (as Reade described it) without her cooperation, even if she is taken by surprise. I don’t think Reade cooperated. I think what she described did not happen. But I fully admit I could be wrong. After all, Bill Cosby seemed quite unlikely a rapist. Moreover, Biden himself has called for a full investigation and for records to be released. Cynically one might allege that he asked for records to be released knowing that Senate rules precluded their release. But there should be other documentation. Contrast Biden’s actions and response with that of Kavanaugh and the GOP who refused to allow other withnesses than Ford to testify and who prevented a full investigation.