Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Metaphor]

Since about 50-55% of eligible voters actually vote in US general elections, they are suggestive of general apathy among those enfranchised. If you have a better club to wield, do so Metaphor

​

It's quite simple. Toni thinks Republicans are morally bankrupt and utterly shameless.

Gallup shows that 30% of Americans call themselves Republicans:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

By this standard, about 30% of the population surveyed by Gallup are Republican. (Like any sane person, Gallup does not ask children, who cannot vote, what their political affiliation is).

If you scroll down that link, it shows that Independents can be self-described as 'Republican leaning', 'Democrat leaning' or neither.

If we look at this figure for Republican + Republican leaning (46%), we can assume that 30% of the population is morally bankrupt and utterly shameless, and an additional 16% of the population is morally bankrupt and utterly shameless adjacent.

As for Trump, 49% of adults in the US approve of his performance, so I assume all these people are also morally bankrupt and utterly shameless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seem to me that you are woefully ignorant of the USA.

For example,
1)Mr. Trump did not get the majority of actual votes cast in the election,
2) Roughly 39% of the voting age population did not vote in 2016,
3) the Republican and Democratic Party since 1869 have radically changed, so it is rather stupid to use such a time frame, and
4) among elected Republicans, there is sufficient diversity - Rhinos and never Trumpers are just 2 examples with the GOP, and
5) among elected Democrats, there is sufficient diversity - blue dog Democrats and "progressives" are just 2 examples.

All of which indicate that the proportion of the voting population who are Trumpers is significantly less that 40% of the population.

To rational adults, the world is a complex place that does not fit nicely into a comic-book view of black and white.

Metaphor ‘thinks’ he’s getting some dig at me.

Toni, you claimed Republicans are without conscience. That must be very frightening for you, since Republicans have, in the past, held the presidency and the House, and more or less about as often as Democrats have.

Lets see...

W Admin
Afghan Occupation failure (still fucking there!)
Iraq Occupation failure (10,000 dead or severely maimed US soldiers, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 1,000,000+ permanently displaced Iraqis)
'08 crash (technical Phil Gramm holdover event)

Trump Admin
Tariff war with like everyone raising prices on like everything
COVID-19 Response (has killed tens of thousands, hampered state responses)
That whole Ukraine thing to try and have Ukrainian leader announce fake investigation into Trump's political opponent

Obama Admin
...


Yeah... GOP leadership has been awful. Where have you been? Oh yeah, thousands of miles away.

 

[funinspace]

I'm trying to imagine what it must be like to live in a country where this were actually true of 45-50% of the population as you imagine.

It must be a frightening frightening world out there for you.

Minor detail: So far in 2020, on average only 30% identify as Repugs:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

WTF does that prove?

I realize this may be new to you...But, if one doesn't start a discussion with the same basic set of data/facts, it is difficult to have a rational discussion*. I underlined the key words to help you discover the 'minor detail'.

1% is going to cause a landslide? Is that your point. All I see is a roughly 50/50 split between the Cons and Dems. Unless the majority of independents are secret Dem supporters, that poll proves nothing.

Whatever...


* Yeah, it is too late already, with several pages of Elsewhere quality material...

 

[Elixir]

Toni thinks Republicans are morally bankrupt and utterly shameless.

46% of Republicans are morally bankrupt and utterly shameless. 23% of Republicans feel the shame that has descended upon their party with the advent of Trumpocracy. About 30% are just confused after watching too much FOX News, and are too terrified to vote for those horrible Democrats who want to take away their guns and close down their churches (IOW they are superstitious gulls of TrumPutin propaganda and conspiracy theories). One percent of Republicans, or about 0.3% of the adult population actually garner huge amounts of material profit from Republican kleptocratic practices.

As for Trump, 49% of adults in the US approve of his performance, so I assume all these people are also morally bankrupt and utterly shameless.

In an average of polls, only 43% of Americans "approve" of Trump's performance, and that number breaks down very badly when you look at the specifics regarding what they approve and disapprove of. And in aggregate, it's slipping. Badly. About half of those are misinformed (though not so badly as Australian conservos are about American politics). The other half? Yeah - mostly morally bankrupt and utterly shameless, mixed with cowardly and gullible.

 

[Emily Lake]

With the exception of Tara Reade's accusation, every one of those instances reads paternal to me rather than sexual. Overly familiar in a non-sexual way. Is it appropriate? Nope. Are the women entitled to feel as though Biden didn't fully respect their agency as independent adults?

Veering a bit off-topic... But I'm currently of the opinion that the infantilization of women, as part of the entire package of gender bias, is a bigger overall barrier to women's progress than actual sexual assault or harassment is. The latter behaviors have mostly (not completely) been stomped out as acceptable in business and personal interaction. The former, however, is still very much in evidence.

 

[Emily Lake]

The entire premise of this thread and its promoters is "whataboutism". Mr. Trump has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and of sexual abuse. Mr. Biden has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and now a claim of sexual abuse. None of former was a hurdle for Trump supporters or voters. In my view, none of latter should be a hurdle for any Trump supporter or voter.

Lol... took me a moment to parse that.

I agree with the wit involved, but it raises a different kind of question for me. Let's set aside whether or not Reade's accusation holds water, it's irrelevant to the conceptual question I'm after here.

I've seen a lot of people, primarily democrats, denigrate people who voted for Trump with guilt by association. The gist of the attack has been that if a person knowingly voted for a rapist/racist/bigot then they're as bad as a rapist/racist/bigot themselves. The rhetoric has been that the person who voted for Trump is worthy of scorn and vilification because they were willing to overlook his rape/racism/bigotry in order to accomplish their political aims... which makes them at the very least, supportive of rape/racism/bigotry.

If there is a credible accusation against a Democratic nominee, and Democrats are willing to overlook those behaviors in order to accomplish their political aims, wouldn't the same hold true for them? Wouldn't Republicans, then, be justified in attacking and denigrating Democrats by the same logic?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If there is a credible accusation against a Democratic nominee

Well, that's the crux right there. We do not have a credible accusation as has been exhaustively demonstrated.

In regard to Trump, however, we not only have credible accusations, we have his own words confirming that he's a sexual molester at the very least. That some Republicans have chosen to believe that was "locker room talk" does not just axiomatically make it so, particularly when all of the OTHER accusations confirm what he himself bragged about while knowingly on a hot mic.

Wouldn't Republicans, then, be justified in attacking and denigrating Democrats by the same logic?

No, because, again, THEIR concern is not for the woman. This thread is ample proof that we--Democrats--have thoroughly and exhaustively analyzed Reade's claims honestly and without bias and shown them to be contradictory and suspect on a number of different salient points.

Trump voters heard "locker room talk" and that was the end of their investigation. And that's notwithstanding the pornstar accusations and the numerous allegations of Trump just walking into the dressing rooms of various pageants, where he knew and boasted about seeing women undressed.

These are his words:

“You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”

And those words have been repeatedly confirmed by contestants, some of which were fifteen at the time he just decided to walk into their dressing room.

So these are confirmed accounts by both the victims and the perpetrator and all of this has been well-documented and out there long before the general in 2016, so Republicans had confirmed accounts of sexual predation at the very least and ignored them.

We have one accusation that has been thoroughly analyzed from every possible angle and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[laughing dog]

The entire premise of this thread and its promoters is "whataboutism". Mr. Trump has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and of sexual abuse. Mr. Biden has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and now a claim of sexual abuse. None of former was a hurdle for Trump supporters or voters. In my view, none of latter should be a hurdle for any Trump supporter or voter.

Lol... took me a moment to parse that.

I agree with the wit involved, but it raises a different kind of question for me. Let's set aside whether or not Reade's accusation holds water, it's irrelevant to the conceptual question I'm after here.

I've seen a lot of people, primarily democrats, denigrate people who voted for Trump with guilt by association. The gist of the attack has been that if a person knowingly voted for a rapist/racist/bigot then they're as bad as a rapist/racist/bigot themselves. The rhetoric has been that the person who voted for Trump is worthy of scorn and vilification because they were willing to overlook his rape/racism/bigotry in order to accomplish their political aims... which makes them at the very least, supportive of rape/racism/bigotry.

If there is a credible accusation against a Democratic nominee, and Democrats are willing to overlook those behaviors in order to accomplish their political aims, wouldn't the same hold true for them? Wouldn't Republicans, then, be justified in attacking and denigrating Democrats by the same logic?

Many Trump supporters echoed their idol's bigoted and racist sentiments. But if Mr. Biden had approximately same history of bigoted and racist remarks along with a similar history of rape, sexual assault and harassment as Trump, then yes, they would.

Up to now, the Republicans who are barking about this don't. So no.

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind

 

[Harry Bosch]

The entire premise of this thread and its promoters is "whataboutism". Mr. Trump has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and of sexual abuse. Mr. Biden has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and now a claim of sexual abuse. None of former was a hurdle for Trump supporters or voters. In my view, none of latter should be a hurdle for any Trump supporter or voter.

Lol... took me a moment to parse that.

I agree with the wit involved, but it raises a different kind of question for me. Let's set aside whether or not Reade's accusation holds water, it's irrelevant to the conceptual question I'm after here.

I've seen a lot of people, primarily democrats, denigrate people who voted for Trump with guilt by association. The gist of the attack has been that if a person knowingly voted for a rapist/racist/bigot then they're as bad as a rapist/racist/bigot themselves. The rhetoric has been that the person who voted for Trump is worthy of scorn and vilification because they were willing to overlook his rape/racism/bigotry in order to accomplish their political aims... which makes them at the very least, supportive of rape/racism/bigotry.

If there is a credible accusation against a Democratic nominee, and Democrats are willing to overlook those behaviors in order to accomplish their political aims, wouldn't the same hold true for them? Wouldn't Republicans, then, be justified in attacking and denigrating Democrats by the same logic?

The problem here is that Tara's accusation isn't credible. The legal definition of credible is whether or not a person would be believed and trusted by a jury. It appears that she has lied many times to people in the past. It appears that she has been caught lying in court. She dosn't remember certain people who have very good memories of her. Her story changes all the time. And she has no evidence. She just isn't credible.

 

[angelo]

The entire premise of this thread and its promoters is "whataboutism". Mr. Trump has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and of sexual abuse. Mr. Biden has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and now a claim of sexual abuse. None of former was a hurdle for Trump supporters or voters. In my view, none of latter should be a hurdle for any Trump supporter or voter.

Lol... took me a moment to parse that.

I agree with the wit involved, but it raises a different kind of question for me. Let's set aside whether or not Reade's accusation holds water, it's irrelevant to the conceptual question I'm after here.

I've seen a lot of people, primarily democrats, denigrate people who voted for Trump with guilt by association. The gist of the attack has been that if a person knowingly voted for a rapist/racist/bigot then they're as bad as a rapist/racist/bigot themselves. The rhetoric has been that the person who voted for Trump is worthy of scorn and vilification because they were willing to overlook his rape/racism/bigotry in order to accomplish their political aims... which makes them at the very least, supportive of rape/racism/bigotry.

If there is a credible accusation against a Democratic nominee, and Democrats are willing to overlook those behaviors in order to accomplish their political aims, wouldn't the same hold true for them? Wouldn't Republicans, then, be justified in attacking and denigrating Democrats by the same logic?

The problem here is that Tara's accusation isn't credible. The legal definition of credible is whether or not a person would be believed and trusted by a jury. It appears that she has lied many times to people in the past. It appears that she has been caught lying in court. She dosn't remember certain people who have very good memories of her. Her story changes all the time. And she has no evidence. She just isn't credible.

You mean evidence like a soiled dress alla Lewinsky type? I'll bet were Tara Reade accusing Trump of sexual assault, the mainstream media and Democrats would be screaming from the rooftops! It would make the Russian hoax look like a little Johnny joke.

 

[Arctish]

The problem here is that Tara's accusation isn't credible. The legal definition of credible is whether or not a person would be believed and trusted by a jury. It appears that she has lied many times to people in the past. It appears that she has been caught lying in court. She dosn't remember certain people who have very good memories of her. Her story changes all the time. And she has no evidence. She just isn't credible.

You mean evidence like a soiled dress alla Lewinsky type? I'll bet were Tara Reade accusing Trump of sexual assault, the mainstream media and Democrats would be screaming from the rooftops! It would make the Russian hoax look like a little Johnny joke.

If Tara Reade said Trump grabbed her by the pussy and forced a kiss, who would you believe, him or her?

 

[angelo]

The problem here is that Tara's accusation isn't credible. The legal definition of credible is whether or not a person would be believed and trusted by a jury. It appears that she has lied many times to people in the past. It appears that she has been caught lying in court. She dosn't remember certain people who have very good memories of her. Her story changes all the time. And she has no evidence. She just isn't credible.

You mean evidence like a soiled dress alla Lewinsky type? I'll bet were Tara Reade accusing Trump of sexual assault, the mainstream media and Democrats would be screaming from the rooftops! It would make the Russian hoax look like a little Johnny joke.

If Tara Reade said Trump grabbed her by the pussy and forced a kiss, who would you believe, him or her?

I'm not to sure about you, but I'd believe her, after a lie detector test!

 

[Arctish]

If Tara Reade said Trump grabbed her by the pussy and forced a kiss, who would you believe, him or her?

I'm not to sure about you, but I'd believe her, after a lie detector test!

Why not believe them both?

"You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." -- Donald Trump in a 2005 interview with Billy Bush

 

[Harry Bosch]

The problem here is that Tara's accusation isn't credible. The legal definition of credible is whether or not a person would be believed and trusted by a jury. It appears that she has lied many times to people in the past. It appears that she has been caught lying in court. She dosn't remember certain people who have very good memories of her. Her story changes all the time. And she has no evidence. She just isn't credible.

You mean evidence like a soiled dress alla Lewinsky type? I'll bet were Tara Reade accusing Trump of sexual assault, the mainstream media and Democrats would be screaming from the rooftops! It would make the Russian hoax look like a little Johnny joke.

No, it's not that. The difference between Monica and Tara is that Monica had personal credibility and evidence. Tara has no evidence on her side and zero personal credibility.

 

[Elixir]

The problem here is that Tara's accusation isn't credible. The legal definition of credible is whether or not a person would be believed and trusted by a jury. It appears that she has lied many times to people in the past. It appears that she has been caught lying in court. She dosn't remember certain people who have very good memories of her. Her story changes all the time. And she has no evidence. She just isn't credible.

You mean evidence like a soiled dress alla Lewinsky type? I'll bet were Tara Reade accusing Trump of sexual assault, the mainstream media and Democrats would be screaming from the rooftops! It would make the Russian hoax look like a little Johnny joke.

No, it's not that. The difference between Monica and Tara is that Monica had personal credibility and evidence. Tara has no evidence on her side and zero personal credibility.

But Reade has Rupert Murdoch and the entire TrumPutin propaganda machine on her side. If you're a trumpsucking conservotard, that trumps everything else.

 

[ZiprHead]

Reade may regret doing this now that she is suspected of committing perjury.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'll bet were Tara Reade accusing Trump of sexual assault, the mainstream media and Democrats would be screaming from the rooftops! It would make the Russian hoax look like a little Johnny joke.

It's declarative programmed sophistry like this that make everyone who parrots it lose all credibility. This is precisely why no Trump supporter has any say in the matter. Not a single one gives a flying fuck about Reade or her story or any of the many women who have come forward confirming Trump's own repeated public boasts of sexual predation or women period. They just can't stand the fact that we are all morally superior to them.

 

[Elixir]

I'll bet were Tara Reade accusing Trump of sexual assault, the mainstream media and Democrats would be screaming from the rooftops! It would make the Russian hoax look like a little Johnny joke.

It's declarative programmed sophistry like this that make everyone who parrots it lose all credibility. This is precisely why no Trump supporter has any say in the matter. Not a single one gives a flying fuck about Reade or her story or any of the many women who have come forward confirming Trump's own repeated public boasts of sexual predation or women period. They just can't stand the fact that we are all morally superior to them.

There is a moral equivalence of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Scumbags are too morally bankrupt to realize that they are scumbags.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'll bet were Tara Reade accusing Trump of sexual assault, the mainstream media and Democrats would be screaming from the rooftops! It would make the Russian hoax look like a little Johnny joke.

It's declarative programmed sophistry like this that make everyone who parrots it lose all credibility. This is precisely why no Trump supporter has any say in the matter. Not a single one gives a flying fuck about Reade or her story or any of the many women who have come forward confirming Trump's own repeated public boasts of sexual predation or women period. They just can't stand the fact that we are all morally superior to them.

There is a moral equivalence of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Scumbags are too morally bankrupt to realize that they are scumbags.

But what's really strange is that they evidently also can't comprehend the fact that they are transparent to everyone else. I've said it before, it's not just that they are too stupid to understand how stupid they are; it's that they don't realize they're in a zoo. It's like when a child thinks that if they cover their eyes, no one else can see them plain as day. Sofa king weird.