Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Rhea]

I am inclined to believe the accuser such that evidence will be heard and considered. Kavanagh should have been actually investigated. This accusation from Tara Reade should be investigated. So that if there is any additional evidence, or analysis of evidence, that makes it more believable than it currently seems, we should know that evidence exists.

In the Kavanagh case, for example, there was evidence from multiple sources, multiple women AND multiple men that he behaved in a predatory manner. There were witnesses that were not interviewed or questioned. That was absolutely wrong.

In the Biden case, are there any additional witnesses or evidence that has not been investigated? They should be.

My sense from what I’ve seen (just personal opinion) is that her initial claim should be believed and investigated. And that what has been presented since then is not very solid for the story of penetration by fingers in a public senate hallway. That the crime she accuses him of is very rarely done only once, and there is no other claim about him. That the call from her mother does not in any way corroborate anything beyond the creepy space-invasion that Biden is indeed known for (and some have claimed that he’s understood and changed - I don’t know this). That the Space-Invader Biden is someone we already know (and I don’t care for). But Rapist Biden does not seem to fit the known evidence.


For those calling for us to condemn Biden on the given evidence, I don’t think they have a convincing case. If there is more evidence, let’s given it space to be known.

 

[Derec]

What "major investigation" by the US Senate are you referring to?

There were weeks worth of hearings, if I remember correctly.

The FBI investigation was anything but thorough

It was certainly commensurate with evidence, no matter what Vox writers think.

 

[Derec]

Funny how that was not the only accusation of sexual violence against that particular nominee.

One accusation (no evidence though) of sexual violence while in high school, and I think two of behaving crudely at a college party.

Somehow, accusations of sexual assault and rape never count against a Republican candidate.

Oh please. Both sides are partisan here. Clinton had his share of accusations as well. As did Lt. Gov. of Virginia Justin Fairfax more recently.

I think that regardless of the letter behind one's name, we should not crucify people based on mere accusation.

 

[Derec]

I'm just finding Tara Reade to be less and less believable. She has been flashing pictures of herself from the 1980s when she was younger. Today she condemned Anderson Cooper for not asking Biden about her (she's a publicity hound).

She has that in common with EJC, who timed her "Barney's changing room rape" allegations to coincide with her misandrist book getting released.
However, we have been told we must believe EJC because she is a woman.

 

[Rhea]

I think that regardless of the letter behind one's name, we should not crucify people based on mere accusation.

Nor should we dismiss them based on mere denial.

 

[Rhea]

What "major investigation" by the US Senate are you referring to?

There were weeks worth of hearings, if I remember correctly.

Which hearing do you mean?

 

[Derec]

I am inclined to believe the accuser such that evidence will be heard and considered.

Believing the accuser prejudges the case. The only proper a-priori position is one of neutrality, not of automatically believing one side because of the genitals they posses.

Kavanagh should have been actually investigated.

If Blasey-Ford had actually been raped, then she should have made the accusation when it happened. Then there would be hope that an investigation would yield actual evidence.
Instead, she chose to accuse somebody nominated for SCOTUS based on something that may or may not have happened about 30 years earlier at an unknown location and an unknown time. Note how politically convenient her accusation was.

This accusation from Tara Reade should be investigated. So that if there is any additional evidence, or analysis of evidence, that makes it more believable than it currently seems, we should know that evidence exists.

The same problem exists, to a somewhat lesser extent.

In the Kavanagh case, for example, there was evidence from multiple sources, multiple women AND multiple men that he behaved in a predatory manner. There were witnesses that were not interviewed or questioned. That was absolutely wrong.

There was no evidence or witnesses or evidence that corroborate the CBF rape allegation. Zero! Even if he behaved crudely at a college party while drunk, that is no evidence he raped anybody.

In the Biden case, are there any additional witnesses or evidence that has not been investigated? They should be.

Well if Biden is to be treated like Kav was, anything questionable he might have done at any point is taken as "corroboration" even if there is no evidence for the actual accusation.

My sense from what I’ve seen (just personal opinion) is that her initial claim should be believed and investigated.

Why should it be believed prior to any investigation?

That the Space-Invader Biden is someone we already know (and I don’t care for). But Rapist Biden does not seem to fit the known evidence.

And yet you are using stories of "crudely behaving at party Kav" as evidence for "rapist Kav".

For those calling for us to condemn Biden on the given evidence, I don’t think they have a convincing case. If there is more evidence, let’s given it space to be known.

I am confused. Didn't you say that you believed the accuser? Or do you not after all?

 

[Derec]

Which hearing do you mean?

The one where he was grilled by Senators like Kamala Harris and where he famously exclaimed that he liked beer.


Did you forget about it so soon? It wasn't that long ago.

 

[Derec]

"Nutso." Is that your clinical diagnosis?

Yes, because "nutso" is right there in DSM 5.

How do you know no one heard or saw anything?

If you heard or saw somebody being raped in a changing room, would you not do anything?

So you think the only reason people believe Carroll is because they dislike Trump?

Yes. If some Republican female writer had accused Joe Biden of raping in a changing room at Macy's in the mid-90s nobody here would believe her.
Even if she didn't have a book to peddle and even if she didn't ramble about sexy rape to Anderson Cooper.

Could you provide evidence for that? No, of course not. So you are forming a conclusion that is NOT based on evidence, just your belief.

EJC offered zero evidence for her claims. And the burden of proof is on her, not me.

 

[Derec]

What independent evidence do you have that E. Jean Carroll, who is quite well known and very successful is a 'nutso?'

The accusations is quite out there for one. Then there is her "sexy rape" rambling to Anderson Cooper.

You are assuming that one accusation is inspired another accusation and not a reporting of an actual event. Your bias is skewing your conclusion.

I am NOT assuming that. I am merely saying that we CANNOT ASSUME that it is a reporting of an actual event because she MIGHT WELL have decided to accuse him because she heard of those other accusations. If the accusations are not independent, you cannot use the number of them to decide that the accusations are credible.

There is no evidence that Carroll is 'nutso.' Your bias in any rape accusation is that the woman is lying.

And your bias is that any woman is telling the truth. Except for that lying bitch Tara Reid. She is an exception that proves the rule that women don't lie about rape, right?

I don't believe Carroll because I dislike Trump. I tend to believe Carroll because there is no possible motivation for her to come forward now, so many years later---

I can think of at least two:
- she was selling a book, and this accusation gave her yuuuge spike of publicity.
- she is a Democrat who wanted to damage Trump politically.

But her claim that he pushed her against a wall, shoved his hands inside her clothing and digitally penetrated her? Seems both out of character and difficult to accomplish given how she describes her clothing that day.

Besides, Biden does strike me as an old fashioned, analog kind of guy.

I won't write her off as crazy and I don't totally dismiss her accusation as fiction but I find it more doubtful.

You should use that sense of doubt for more cases, instead of believing a woman's claims just because a woman makes it, even if there is zero evidence it is true.

 

[Derec]

Rape apologia much?

Not at all. The right attitude until and unless there is evidence one way of the other is neutrality, not fideism toward the female accuser.
Not automatically believing the woman is not "rape apologia".

 

[Arctish]

I am inclined to believe the accuser such that evidence will be heard and considered. Kavanagh should have been actually investigated. This accusation from Tara Reade should be investigated. So that if there is any additional evidence, or analysis of evidence, that makes it more believable than it currently seems, we should know that evidence exists.

In the Kavanagh case, for example, there was evidence from multiple sources, multiple women AND multiple men that he behaved in a predatory manner. There were witnesses that were not interviewed or questioned. That was absolutely wrong.

In the Biden case, are there any additional witnesses or evidence that has not been investigated? They should be.

My sense from what I’ve seen (just personal opinion) is that her initial claim should be believed and investigated. And that what has been presented since then is not very solid for the story of penetration by fingers in a public senate hallway. That the crime she accuses him of is very rarely done only once, and there is no other claim about him. That the call from her mother does not in any way corroborate anything beyond the creepy space-invasion that Biden is indeed known for (and some have claimed that he’s understood and changed - I don’t know this). That the Space-Invader Biden is someone we already know (and I don’t care for). But Rapist Biden does not seem to fit the known evidence.


For those calling for us to condemn Biden on the given evidence, I don’t think they have a convincing case. If there is more evidence, let’s given it space to be known.

^This is pretty much how I feel about it as well.

Reade's complaint should be thoroughly investigated, not dismissed or ignored. Her complaint should also be accurately reported, not exaggerated or distorted.

Reade says Biden grabbed her by the vulva, that he backed off when his groping was met with shock and revulsion, and that he then told her she was nothing to him. Biden can get handsy and he likes to sniff hair and perfume, but AFAIK this is the only allegation of sexual aggression/ sexual assault. If there are others, it's important to thoroughly and openly investigate those claims. too.

 

[laughing dog]

Rape apologia much?

Not at all. The right attitude until and unless there is evidence one way of the other is neutrality, not fideism toward the female accuser.

Calling a rape accuser a "nutso" or a "bitch" is not evidence of neutrality. Your posts reek of misogyny and rape apologia.

Not automatically believing the woman is not "rape apologia".

Didn't say it was. Reflexively referring to rape accusers as "nutso" or "lying bitch" along with speculations about
motives are forms of rape apologia.

 

[Derec]

Calling a rape accuser a "nutso" or a "bitch" is not evidence of neutrality. Your posts reek of misogyny and rape apologia.

I said initial neutrality. Until more evidence emerges one way or another. Since she first made her accusations, no evidence emerged backing her up, but evidence showing her being nuts certainly did.
As to "bitch", that was part of me parodying Toni's views of believing every accuser but making an exception for Tara Reid. This is your infamous lack of reading comprehension yet again.

Didn't say it was. Reflexively referring to rape accusers as "nutso" or "lying bitch" along with speculations about motives are forms of rape apologia.

It is not reflexive. I do not think EJC was raped. I also think she is nuts. Many people on here call people in public life nuts or worse. Why should EJC be exempt from such just because she is a woman?

 

[laughing dog]

Calling a rape accuser a "nutso" or a "bitch" is not evidence of neutrality. Your posts reek of misogyny and rape apologia.

I said initial neutrality. Until more evidence emerges one way or another. Since she first made her accusations, no evidence emerged backing her up, but evidence showing her being nuts certainly did.

Not as much evidence as to support your rape apologia.

As to "bitch", that was part of me parodying Toni's views of believing every accuser but making an exception for Tara Reid. This is your infamous lack of reading comprehension yet again.

Nah. I understand your idiotic parody. Your choice of words belies your pathetic excuse. And it is not an isolated incident of you using "lying bitch" to describe a woman who makes an accusation of rape.

I strongly suspect no one here buys your excuses.

It is not reflexive. I do not think EJC was raped. I also think she is nuts.

Of course you don't - it is your reflexive response.

Many people on here call people in public life nuts or worse. Why should EJC be exempt from such just because she is a woman?

Your straw man is a stark example of sexism. No one said anyone was exempt because of gender

 

[Arctish]

Believing the accuser prejudges the case. The only proper a-priori position is one of neutrality, not of automatically believing one side because of the genitals they posses.


If Blasey-Ford had actually been raped, then she should have made the accusation when it happened. Then there would be hope that an investigation would yield actual evidence.
Instead, she chose to accuse somebody nominated for SCOTUS based on something that may or may not have happened about 30 years earlier at an unknown location and an unknown time. Note how politically convenient her accusation was.

So, you're just going to ignore the actual allegation and the supporting evidence, as well as the other allegations regarding Kavanaugh at that time in his life, and peddle a line about it being 'convenient' that serious allegations of sexual assault were aired during the vetting process of a nominee to the Supreme Court?

 

[laughing dog]

What "major investigation" by the US Senate are you referring to?

There were weeks worth of hearings, if I remember correctly.

Your recall is faulty.
There were 4 days of hearing, then a recess, then some days of testimony from Mr. Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford ( Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination)

It was certainly commensurate with evidence, no matter what Vox writers think.

Spoken like a true rape apologist. Since the investigation was limited, we don't know what all the evidence was.

 

[Metaphor]

I am inclined to believe the accuser such that evidence will be heard and considered. Kavanagh should have been actually investigated. This accusation from Tara Reade should be investigated. So that if there is any additional evidence, or analysis of evidence, that makes it more believable than it currently seems, we should know that evidence exists.

In the Kavanagh case, for example, there was evidence from multiple sources, multiple women AND multiple men that he behaved in a predatory manner. There were witnesses that were not interviewed or questioned. That was absolutely wrong.

In the Biden case, are there any additional witnesses or evidence that has not been investigated? They should be.

My sense from what I’ve seen (just personal opinion) is that her initial claim should be believed and investigated. And that what has been presented since then is not very solid for the story of penetration by fingers in a public senate hallway. That the crime she accuses him of is very rarely done only once, and there is no other claim about him. That the call from her mother does not in any way corroborate anything beyond the creepy space-invasion that Biden is indeed known for (and some have claimed that he’s understood and changed - I don’t know this). That the Space-Invader Biden is someone we already know (and I don’t care for). But Rapist Biden does not seem to fit the known evidence.


For those calling for us to condemn Biden on the given evidence, I don’t think they have a convincing case. If there is more evidence, let’s given it space to be known.

The problem with this language is the idea that we must "believe" Tara Reade - part of the same "believe women" idea pushed by feminists. To believe her means you think the events happened and if you did, there'd be no need for investigation.

"Take accusations seriously" is a much fairer standard.

 

[Rhea]

Which hearing do you mean?

The one where he was grilled by Senators like Kamala Harris and where he famously exclaimed that he liked beer.


Did you forget about it so soon? It wasn't that long ago.

Oh, you’re answering something different. Someone said he should have been thoroughly investigated, and you said he was, at the hearing, and now you’re saying the public hearing for his JOB APPLICATION was your answer to having a thorough criminal investigation.


So, no, the topic was whether there was a proper criminal investigation. There wasn’t.

 

[Rhea]

The problem with this language is the idea that we must "believe" Tara Reade - part of the same "believe women" idea pushed by feminists. To believe her means you think the events happened and if you did, there'd be no need for investigation.

"Take accusations seriously" is a much fairer standard.

You may call it "Take accusations seriously,” if that helps. That’s what I mean when I say “I am inclined to believe the accuser such that evidence will be heard and considered.”