Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Emily Lake]

We do not have a credible accusation as has been exhaustively demonstrated.

The problem here is that Tara's accusation isn't credible.

Koy and Harry, you seem to have missed a key part of my question:

Let's set aside whether or not Reade's accusation holds water, it's irrelevant to the conceptual question I'm after here.

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.

And Laughing Dog, I'm not sure you're actually answering the question I asked. You're responding that calling racists and bigots racists and bigots is acceptable. Which, okay, yes, that makes sense. But that's also not what I'm talking about.

I suppose I better make sure that we're all talking about the same thing.

I have observed that there is a tendency to denigrate and vilify people who voted for Trump as being tacit supporters of rape and bigotry. The rhetoric I've seen has essentially argued that 1) because Trump was known to be a rapist and a bigot prior to the election then 2) anyone who voted for him is supportive of rape and bigotry because 3) if they were actually opposed to rape and bigotry then 4) they would have voted for someone else. The argument suggests that voting for Trump despite knowing his tendencies makes a person guilty of supporting those tendencies regardless of whether they themselves exhibit any of those tendencies.

Have you guys seen that sort of argument?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koy and Harry, you seem to have missed a key part of my question:

Let's set aside whether or not Reade's accusation holds water, it's irrelevant to the conceptual question I'm after here.

No, I pointed out that it's not possible to set that aside and is entirely relevant--centrally relevant in fact--to the "conceptual question" you were after, at least as worded.

I suppose I better make sure that we're all talking about the same thing.

I have observed that there is a tendency to denigrate and vilify people who voted for Trump as being tacit supporters of rape and bigotry.

Cart before the horse. My argument has been that because they voted for Trump--thus tacitly condoning sexual predation openly confirmed by Trump himself repeatedly and for decades---they have no standing to denigrate or vilify any Democrat that would vote for Biden in light of the Reade accusation.

As to your version, I'd stand by that phrasing as well. When someone says directly to your face (in effect), "I am a sexual predator and a bigot and I not only make no excuse for either, I encourage both" as Trump has done in countless ways directly and indirectly, both during the 2016 and repeatedly over the years as POTUS, then, yeah, any one who voted for/or expresses intent to vote again for that person is certainly tacitly supporting both sexual predation and bigotry.

It is not mere denigration, however. It is borne directly out of the comments such people have repeatedly made over the past three years, let alone the ones they made at the time. It is not us pre-judging; it is us merely responding to what they themselves are arguing.

As I pointed out before, the very fact that millions heard what he said about grabbing pussies and actually accepted that he was simply lying about it (i.e., "locker room talk") proves that they are tacitly supporting sexual predation (to be pedantic). Unless you are a congenital idiot and literally did not have the cognitive capacity to add together ALL of the many many many many many times Trump has publicly and proudly affirmed his sexual predation--such that no one instance can be casually dismissed in that manner--there simply is no way you could accept "locker room talk" as a legitimate excuse for what he said.

So it takes willful ignorance to buy that bullshit, which, in my book at least, would most definitely fall under the rubric of "tacit" support.

Again, look at just this thread. We have thoroughly and comprehensively (as best as the available evidence has allowed) deconstructed every single thing possible about the Reade allegation, never once (I at least) merely dismissing the whole thing as "well, boys will be boys" or something equally similar to "it was all just locker room talk."

But that--literally--was all it took for millions of Trump voters. It was just "locker room talk." The man openly and publicly bragged--on a mic he knew he had on him and knew was live--that he molests women and because he's a celebrity, they "let" him do it.

If you vote for that man then, yeah, no question about it, you are tacitly condoning sexual predation.

 

[Toni]

No, I pointed out that it's not possible to set that aside and is entirely relevant--centrally relevant in fact--to the "conceptual question" you were after, at least as worded.

I suppose I better make sure that we're all talking about the same thing.

I have observed that there is a tendency to denigrate and vilify people who voted for Trump as being tacit supporters of rape and bigotry.

Cart before the horse. My argument has been that because they voted for Trump--thus tacitly condoning sexual predation openly confirmed by Trump himself repeatedly and for decades---they have no standing to denigrate or vilify any Democrat that would vote for Biden in light of the Reade accusation.

As to your version, I'd stand by that phrasing as well. When someone says directly to your face (in effect), "I am a sexual predator and a bigot and I not only make no excuse for either, I encourage both" as Trump has done in countless ways directly and indirectly, both during the 2016 and repeatedly over the years as POTUS, then, yeah, any one who voted for/or expresses intent to vote again for that person is certainly tacitly supporting both sexual predation and bigotry.

It is not mere denigration, however. It is borne directly out of the comments such people have repeatedly made over the past three years, let alone the ones they made at the time. It is not us pre-judging; it is us merely responding to what they themselves are arguing.

As I pointed out before, the very fact that millions heard what he said about grabbing pussies and actually accepted that he was simply lying about it (i.e., "locker room talk") proves that they are tacitly supporting sexual predation (to be pedantic). Unless you are a congenital idiot and literally did not have the cognitive capacity to add together ALL of the many many many many many times Trump has publicly and proudly affirmed his sexual predation--such that no one instance can be casually dismissed in that manner--there simply is no way you could accept "locker room talk" as a legitimate excuse for what he said.

So it takes willful ignorance to buy that bullshit, which, in my book at least, would most definitely fall under the rubric of "tacit" support.

Again, look at just this thread. We have thoroughly and comprehensively (as best as the available evidence has allowed) deconstructed every single thing possible about the Reade allegation, never once (I at least) merely dismissing the whole thing as "well, boys will be boys" or something equally similar to "it was all just locker room talk."

But that--literally--was all it took for millions of Trump voters. It was just "locker room talk." The man openly and publicly bragged--on a mic he knew he had on him and knew was live--that he molests women and because he's a celebrity, they "let" him do it.

If you vote for that man then, yeah, no question about it, you are tacitly condoning sexual predation.

I don't think that all Trump supporters are intentionally condoning Trump's sexual assaults. I think a lot of them have simply compartmentalized the sexual assaults in the name of The Greater Good.

This is disturbingly similar to what I see some people doing re: allegations against Biden.

And it's a conundrum.

If we flat out refuse to even consider that Reade's allegations might be factual, how different are we from the Trump supporters who believe, truly believe that all those women are lying?

If we concede that it happened or might have happened but Biden is still better than Trump and so we'll support him, how are we better than those Trump supporters who are willing to overlook such 'indiscretions' because Biden will give us our version of the Greater good just as Trump delivers what his supporters want?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't think that all Trump supporters are intentionally condoning Trump's sexual assaults. I think a lot of them have simply compartmentalized the sexual assaults in the name of The Greater Good.

I consider that to be tacitly condoning.

If we flat out refuse to even consider that Reade's allegations might be factual, how different are we from the Trump supporters who believe, truly believe that all those women are lying?

As I tried to make abundantly clear, I, at least, have not flat out refused anything at all. I have, in fact, taken great pains to research and present every aspect we have available to us regarding her allegation and then gone into exhaustive detail about exactly why I feel her claims do not stand up to scrutiny.

The whataboutism/false equivalence that I see at the heart of the Trumpian argument is not at all about Reade or her story; it is precisely the idea that we--Democrats--are simply choosing to ignore her accusation the same way Trump supporters chose to ignore his public boasting of sexual predation and the many many many other allegations against him. Usually they were simply dismissed with a "that's because you hate Trump" or other such "Trump Derangement Syndrome" idiocy.

What I've seen itt and irl is Democrats coming to the end of a long argumental line and saying something to the effect of: "on top of the fact that I don't find Reade's story credible for all the reasons just given, even if it were true, it still does not equate to what Trump has done, so I would vote Biden."

It literally can't be more carefully and deliberately quantified.

So if someone can point to any Democrat who has said, "I didn't read a thing about her and never explored the details, but I don't care, I'm voting Biden" then and only then might a Trump supporter have a valid accusation of j'accuse hypocrite. But, again, the low-bar standard of wanting to call someone a hypocrite only ever reflects on the desire of that person to be equal in low stature; to lower the other, rather than rise up.

Iow, and once again, the Trump argument has nothing to do with Reade. It is exclusively and solely about lowering Democrats to Trump supporter ("deplorable") level; to say: "See, you're just as bad as I am; I didn't do any investigation into any claims against Trump just as you refuse to investigate claims against Biden."

But, again, no one here has refused to investigate Reade's claim. Precisely the opposite.

 

[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.

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.

Has anyone ever asked the little girls Creepy molested how they felt with the creep Biden all over them? You know the one's. The images Iv'e posted several times already?

 

[Arctish]

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.

Has anyone ever asked the little girls Creepy molested how they felt with the creep Biden all over them? You know the one's. The images Iv'e posted several times already?

Why don't you find out and then let the rest of us know?

 

[angelo]

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.

Has anyone ever asked the little girls Creepy molested how they felt with the creep Biden all over them? You know the one's. The images Iv'e posted several times already?

Why don't you find out and then let the rest of us know?

You don't know either hey! The Dem media have done an excellent job haven't they? Reckon they would've given the Trump the benefit of doubt had it been he who was all over them?

 

[Arctish]

Why don't you find out and then let the rest of us know?

You don't know either hey! The Dem media have done an excellent job haven't they? Reckon they would've given the Trump the benefit of doubt had it been he who was all over them?

Trump has been 'all over' women, grabbing them by the crotch and forcing unwanted kisses among other acts, according to the 25 women accusing him of sexual assault and by his own admission. Why would anyone give Trump the benefit of the doubt but withhold it from Biden?

 

[KeepTalking]

Why don't you find out and then let the rest of us know?

You don't know either hey! The Dem media have done an excellent job haven't they? Reckon they would've given the Trump the benefit of doubt had it been he who was all over them?

That's just the thing, when it comes to Trump "all over them" refers to sexually assaulting women, you know "grabbing them by the pussy" as your hero bragged. When it comes to Biden "all over them" means leaving his hand on their shoulder a bit too long. There is no question as to the difference, yet people like angelo will continue to equate them.

 

[thebeave]

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.

Has anyone ever asked the little girls Creepy molested how they felt with the creep Biden all over them? You know the one's. The images Iv'e posted several times already?

Regardless of whether you're a little girl or an adult woman, imagine how creepy it must be if you are in a forced sexual relationship with a relative or family friend and you suddenly feel some stranger behind you running his hands through your hair and caressing your face, kissing your neck, etc. while he whispers some creepy-ass shit in your ears. And its all captured on video for the world to see and for you to have to constantly relive. <shivers>

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Has anyone ever asked the little girls Creepy molested how they felt with the creep Biden all over them? You know the one's. The images Iv'e posted several times already?

Regardless of whether you're a little girl or an adult woman, imagine how creepy it must be if you are in a forced sexual relationship with a relative or family friend and you suddenly feel some stranger behind you running his hands through your hair and caressing your face, kissing your neck, etc. while he whispers some creepy-ass shit in your ears. And its all captured on video for the world to see and for you to have to constantly relive. <shivers>

Biden did that to Ivanka Trump?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, now that angelo thinks he can change the narrative--and we've thoroughly deconstructed Reade's allegations--let's see about these "creepy" photos. Like this one:

Here's what the woman in the photo (Stephanie Carter) said about it:

"The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful. So, as the sole owner of my story, it is high time that I reclaim it – from strangers, Twitter, the pundits and the late-night hosts."

Carter recalled the day in detail, saying she was "uncharacteristically nervous" and that she slipped and fell on ice when they arrived at the Pentagon. She said Biden leaned toward her as her husband spoke "to tell me 'thank you for letting him do this' and kept his hands on my shoulders as a means of offering his support."

She recalled her horror as the photo, "misleadingly extracted from what was a longer moment between close friends," became "the lasting image of that day." She said she "felt awful" that Biden's kindness was being used as "supposed proof positive that he didn’t understand how to respect women."

"I thought it would all blow over if I didn’t dignify it with a response. But clearly that was wishful thinking," Carter wrote. "I won’t pretend that this will be the last of that picture, but it will be the last of other people speaking for me."

Of further note in that article is this exchange between Chris Wallace and the wicked witch of the east proven liar Kelly Ann Conway:

Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out that "there are women who have said much worse about your boss, President Trump, in terms of touching them inappropriately."

Conway said those allegations were covered "ad infinitum during the campaign"

So that's how Republicans respond to any allegations against Trump. They were covered "ad infinitum." Meaningless spin that, ironically just magically doesn't apply to Biden for some reason.

Speaking of 2008 and Fox News, we also have this:

A woman related to a former Republican Senate candidate is accusing former Vice President Joe Biden of sexual harassment, claiming he complimented her breasts at a political event in Delaware when she was 14 years old in 2008.

A past organizer of the event, however, now says Biden was not even at the dinner in question.
...
On Friday, the online news outlet Law&Crime reported that Eva Murry, who is now 26, claims the incident happened at Delaware's annual First State Gridiron Dinner & Show in 2008.

The outlet said Murry is the niece of Christine O’Donnell -- a Republican who ran against Biden for the Senate that year and later mounted another unsuccessful bid for the same seat -- and often accompanied her aunt on the campaign trail. She claims the comment was made after Biden and her aunt greeted each other.

"When it was Biden and my aunt’s turn to say hello he quickly turned to me and asked how old I was," Murry told Law&Crime. "I replied with my age and he replied with the comment, ‘Fourteen? You’re very well endowed for 14!’"

"I was confused but it was definitely weird, he looked me up and down and hovered his eyes on my chest so I had some clue [about] the notion of his comment but didn’t fully understand at the time," she said. "We quickly separated from his area after the encounter.”

Problem being:

J. Brian Murphy, the former vice president of the dinner in question, also said in a statement over the weekend that he reviewed the records and can “conclusively say” Biden “was not at the dinner.”

“The year 2008 is particularly noteworthy because it is the only year where the Senator agreed to appear in a video, which was a spoof of Meet the Press. It was taped earlier that week. It was our hope the Senator would attend the dinner to see the video, but he sent regrets. Had he been there, myself as well as others would have known and in fact, I would have acknowledged him from the stage,” he said. “Senator Biden was not at the Gridiron Dinner in May of 2008.”

Local news reports from the time said he was having sinus surgery earlier that week, and was scheduled to be out of work for the whole week. A personal schedule for Biden obtained by Fox News also listed an aide as going in his place to the Gridiron dinner.

O'Donnell, though, backed up Murry's account on April 8 after she first addressed the claims in a Facebook post, which is no longer available to the public. O'Donnell, in her own Facebook post that remains viewable, wrote: "I will never forget that day. It was not only the words he said, it was the beyond-creepy way he looked her up and down. She was only 14 years old."

On Friday, O'Donnell also told Fox News she could confirm Murry's story, and said she was there at the time.

"I was right there when it happened. It wasn't just ... what he said, it was the way he eyed her up and down when he said it. It was beyond creepy and utterly inappropriate," O'Donnell told Fox News. "She actually stopped coming to as many campaign events with me because just knowing he might be there made her feel uncomfortable.”

Asked on Sunday about the organizer's statement that Biden never attended that year, O'Donnell stood by the accusation, while acknowledging to Fox News that it could have been a different year.

“Yes, it could have been another year. So what? She was a teenager when I ran for office. It doesn't make it okay,” she wrote to Fox News.

"So what?" Well, once again:

The outlet said Murry is the niece of Christine O’Donnell -- a Republican who ran against Biden for the Senate that year and later mounted another unsuccessful bid for the same seat -- and often accompanied her aunt on the campaign trail. She claims the comment was made after Biden and her aunt greeted each other.

So, now we have the underraged niece of a Republican rival to Biden making an accusation against Biden at a particular place and on a particular date and the rival herself making the same allegation claiming to have been an eyewitness to the event, no less and when told that Biden was not even there, responds with "So what?"

So, you're lying and since you were NOT a teenager when you ran for office and were allegedly in attendance at this event and and said "I will never forget that day" and you gave an independent eyewitness account of Biden's alleged inappropriate comment that you further allege occurred right in front of you and just after Biden met your fourteen year old niece, even if we give allowances for your niece not remembering the correct date or event, you fucking would have!

Btw, for those who don't know her, O'Donnell is an "activist" in the infamously amoral "Tea Party" movement and an abstinence-only advocate and anti-abortionist and has been a political parasite her whole life.

And then there is this:

Eight women, including Reade, have accused Biden of touching them inappropriately or invading their personal space in ways that made them feel uncomfortable. Seven of the women said Biden's behavior did not amount to sexual harassment or assault.

And finally, in regard to this young lady, Maggie Coons:



We have this from her father:

Coons, D-Del., spoke to the Washington Post on Saturday about a photo of his daughter at his 2015 Senate swearing-in ceremony. In the photo, she appeared uncomfortable as Biden whispered in her ear, but Coons told the Post that his children view Biden as a grandfather figure and that Biden was praising his daughter’s composure when the photo was taken.

"She did not think of it as anything," Coons told the newspaper. "All three of my kids have known Joe their whole lives."

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Tl;dr version: None of the claims--aside from behavior deemed "uncomfortable"--evidences anything remotely near what Trump has publicly bragged about doing his entire life. It's not even apples to oranges; it's apples to flaming orange tiny-hand feces spewing endlessly out a maggot-infested corpse. To put it visually.

Or, better, here is the real Joe Biden (with his granddaughters, one of which he scandalously kissed on the lips the way most grandparents do, including my own when they were alive):

 

[southernhybrid]

This is the downside of the #metoo movement. The idea that every women who makes a claim that a man raped or assaulted her was never what the movement was or should have been about. It was simply about letting women be heard. Unfortunately, there are women who will lie, just like there are men who will lie. When a woman makes a claim about a man who has never been accused of anything more than being a bit too affectionate, who has always supported women's rights, who has always. had the support of his female staff and was known to be an honest family man who travelled home by train every night while he was in the Senate to be with his wife and children, then it's pretty obvious that that particular woman is either a liar or is simply delusional.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is the downside of the #metoo movement.

Well, it's most certainly the downside of Republicans as it is almost always a Republican who will do anything--no matter how despicable--to achieve or maintain power. They will literally sacrifice their own grandparents if it means another term in office. Well, not their grandparents, actually; their minions' grandparents, who are so fucking stupid they'll do it.

 

[Arctish]

This is the downside of the #metoo movement.

Well, it's most certainly the downside of Republicans as it is almost always a Republican who will do anything--no matter how despicable--to achieve or maintain power. They will literally sacrifice their own grandparents if it means another term in office. Well, not their grandparents, actually; their minions' grandparents, who are so fucking stupid they'll do it.

I think this particular controversy about 'Creepy Joe' has more to do with Swift Boating Biden than genuine concern for the women involved.

When W ran against Kerry, his failure to complete his service with the Texas National Guard (without repercussions!) while the War in Viet Nam was still underway was a serious liability, especially considering Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart. So the republicans trashed Kerry's reputation. They alleged his awards were a sham, 'stolen valor', and that Kerry deserved nothing but scorn for having them. It worked well enough to give the flag waving, military worshipping Right an excuse to disdain a war hero.

Now we have a serial sexual predator who brags about his sexual assaults against women up against the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The republicans are attempting to portray Biden's treatment of women as worse than Trump's, and his reputation for caring about gender equality as undeserved. It will work well enough on those folks who already want to re-elect Trump, but I don't think anyone who takes even a cursory look into the matter will fall for it.

 

[angelo]

Why don't you find out and then let the rest of us know?

You don't know either hey! The Dem media have done an excellent job haven't they? Reckon they would've given the Trump the benefit of doubt had it been he who was all over them?

Trump has been 'all over' women, grabbing them by the crotch and forcing unwanted kisses among other acts, according to the 25 women accusing him of sexual assault and by his own admission. Why would anyone give Trump the benefit of the doubt but withhold it from Biden?

You're reinforcing my argument that a nation with 330 million people surely should easily do better in choosing their candidates. But out of the buffoon Trump and creepy child molester Biden, who would return America to it's Obuma era of appeasement and refusing to call Islamic terrorism for what it is!

 

[funinspace]

Regardless of whether you're a little girl or an adult woman, imagine how creepy it must be if you are in a forced sexual relationship with a relative or family friend and you suddenly feel some stranger behind you running his hands through your hair and caressing your face, kissing your neck, etc. while he whispers some creepy-ass shit in your ears. And its all captured on video for the world to see and for you to have to constantly relive. <shivers>

Biden did that to Ivanka Trump?

I was thinking maybe it was Clownstick doing that to Eric...

 

[Toni]

Trump has been 'all over' women, grabbing them by the crotch and forcing unwanted kisses among other acts, according to the 25 women accusing him of sexual assault and by his own admission. Why would anyone give Trump the benefit of the doubt but withhold it from Biden?

You're reinforcing my argument that a nation with 330 million people surely should easily do better in choosing their candidates. But out of the buffoon Trump and creepy child molester Biden, who would return America to it's Obuma era of appeasement and refusing to call Islamic terrorism for what it is!

Let's be clear: Trump is the child molester/child rapist/rapist/serial sexual assailant. The last of which he actually brags about.

The rest is simply an attempt to smear Biden with Trump's vices.

What I truly, truly do not understand is how, after decades of Trump bragging about exactly who he is, some want to believe he's actually someone else?

 

[Rhea]

Trump has been 'all over' women, grabbing them by the crotch and forcing unwanted kisses among other acts, according to the 25 women accusing him of sexual assault and by his own admission. Why would anyone give Trump the benefit of the doubt but withhold it from Biden?

You're reinforcing my argument that a nation with 330 million people surely should easily do better in choosing their candidates. But out of the buffoon Trump and creepy child molester Biden, who would return America to it's Obuma era of appeasement and refusing to call Islamic terrorism for what it is!

You have such a hard time responding to the actual topic. Obama owns so much real estate in your head.
You try to stir up outrage about news that was fake five years ago, and it's still fake now.
You have no real relevance.