Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

It's interesting to also compare Informant's uniform defense of Donald Trump with his uniform condemnation of Barack Obama. Obama made many mistakes in office: a weak stimulus plan, overuse of executive power, drone warfare without sanction or review, heavy deportation, a failure to observe the threat posed by Russia, an inability to connect with the poor and working class who brought Trump to office after him, an insistence on supporting Hillary Clinton for president (which he came to regret during her campaign which he would privately describe as "soulless") and perhaps he should have outright confronted birthers with his birth certificate rather than let that stupid conspiracy theory go on for as long as it did.

But while Informant criticizes Obama, he calls the media-shy from 2016 - 2019 Obama divisive for trying to undermine the Trump presidency while somehow excusing the most aggressively antagonistic president in history from criticism. He calls Obama arrogant for having no false modesty about his intelligence when Trump declares himself a genius and a medical doctor to no comment from Informant. He calls Obama a liar when Trump has made, as of the end of March 2020, approximately 18,000 false claims in the press or on social media.

Shouldn't Informant have being going after Trump just as hard as he did Obama? But Informant gives Donald Trump a pass. The only reason I can see is that Trump is white and Obama is black.

Grizzlor wrote:

In terms of Informant, he's simply not someone you can discuss politics with any sort of rationality.  I used to have WARS with him on the old boards regarding the 2000/2004 elections.  Facts didn't seem matter, and he would offer up his religious beliefs as an argument.  Which is fine, but I never understood why he was watching science fiction?  I mean, he would literally bash Supernatural episodes because they described Biblical figures inaccurately, which I always laughed at, considering both pieces of work are fiction, ha ha.  wink

Anyway, of course he's full on Trump, he is and was a giant hypocrite.  Sorry, but you can't be a devout Christian and look the other way at the kind of charlatan Trump is.  There's literally dozens of examples in the "Good Book" warning against the behavior and type of person which Trump is.  He was a nice guy, and I enjoyed his views on almost anything but politics.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I just don't get this either.  He's a liar and an adulterer.  You can like that he fights against abortion, but I don't know how people can say that he's a godly man.  Just admit it.  He's a bad person but he "stands for" what you stand for.  Him being in power makes you feel safer or makes you richer or you like that the president looks like you and not Obama.

People are stubborn.  Believe me, I have many relatives and friends who are fiscal Republicans, and while they personally dislike Trump, they are so stupidly ingrained with hating Democrats they simply must back him.  As if Obama was somehow the destroyer of what I don't know?  They do NOT like immigrants, and Trump wins with them for sure.  They also have the usual tact that any sort of social program is bad, not because they pay taxes.  No, it's really from selfishness, that if those at the bottom are brought up, it will bring them down.  They enjoy being able to scoff at the less fortunate.

ireactions wrote:

On China: I merely mean I'd prefer that language in media differentiate Chinese government from Chinese ethnicity. I know the Biden campaign is not racist, but for Asians in America taking a lot of abuse and stigma, they view that lack of distinction as racism and that's pretty understandable. And takes one to two extra words to avoid that. "The Chinese government" as opposed to "the Chinese" or "China." Surely those extra syllables could be provided.

On Admissions: As much as I dislike neo-Nazis and white supremacists and misogynists, at least they have the courage (or depravity) to declare who and what they are -- as opposed to trying to shield their stances by calling themselves alt-right men's rights activists and then falling silent when their positions become obvious in their irrationality as they know voicing them would put them outside the realm of reasoned discussion.

And I admit all. Joe Biden is a crashingly mediocre, average person who "stands for" what I "stand for" (at least when a camera is rolling) and him being in power would make me feel safer and if the US stabilized, I would certainly become richer and I like it that a President Biden would remind me of my grandfather who was a man with attitudes from a specific era in the past who took care of me but had many shortcomings and social difficulties while still being a (generally) responsible, hardworking, generous soul.

I dunno if I'd want my grandfather to be leader of the free world, but if I had to choose between him or someone who's already allowed 40,000 Americans to die and still won't get to work on getting personal protective equipment and medical supplies to the states he took an oath to serve, I'd have to go with Grandfather and do what I could to help him not completely screw up at his job. I mean, at least Grandpop is working on getting his transition team together while having the humility to concede that the race isn't won yet and he's just prepping for if he does win it.

Look, we as a nation will never be able to deal with China without international buy in.  Trump's go it alone approach has been awful.  In terms of the alt-right, even the neo-Nazi's are full of crap.  They're all cry baby snowflakes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 581710002/

Well Biden DID author an op ed on January 27, 2020 in the USA Today which literally said, "The possibility of a pandemic is a challenge Donald Trump is unqualified to handle as president."  He mostly blamed his poor judgment and rejection of science, before listing several approaches that worked during the Obama administration but Trump has abandoned.  Biden has repeatedly mentioned the DPA (Defense Production Act), and while Trump has claimed to have invoked it, in reality he has not.  The DPA is designed to have FEMA pay for the construction and/or usage of facilities and equipment.  FEMA then solicits private industry to run the plants, since this is their expertise, and ramp up production to war-time levels.  When the demand is gone, the industry packs up and FEMA closes or sells the plant.  You cannot expect private industry to spend $150 million on a plant that they will have no use for in 2 years time.  Only the US Government can do this, and that is why we have no tests, or PPE, and are still relying on shipments from China.  Trump is a failed businessman, and now a horribly failed government leader.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate


Yes. Informant was and is a hypocrite. I take no pleasure in saying that. I have no joy in Grizzlor and Slider_Quinn21 agreeing on that.

Informant said that I was overblowing President Trump's inadequacies and that he wouldn't be a disaster. We now have an actual disaster. Informant was objectively wrong. That's not an opinion, that's a fact backed by over 40,000 deaths. He was always wrong and so he remains.

But right or wrong, Informant is our friend and if we three agree that he's a hypocrite, perhaps we could also agree to forgive him and hope for his safety and well-being. Also, he is a very talented writer and I encourage everyone to read his FREEDOM/HATE series. His STRANGE FALL and SPIRIT OF CHRISTMAS are also beautifully written. https://www.amazon.com/Kyle-Andrews/e/B005CB30Z4 I mean, he only charges $3 a book on average.

I cannot emphasize enough in the name of Chaser9, Brand_S, Wrong_Arturo and Sarah_Slider that the opinions in this post do not reflect those of the Sliders.tv community.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

More proof Trump's policy as late as the end of the February was to hide the truth about the dangers from the outbreak.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/health-chi … 1587570514


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

That's what's so stupid.  It was coming whether they lied about it or not.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … force.html

Is this the "Good Job Browney" of this mess?  A DOG BREEDER was in charge of the taskforce initially?????

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

An interesting new piece of evidence:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/2 … deo-207670

Confirming that’s her mother may be challenging, but the details given by the caller are compelling.  It was apparently believed to be bad enough behavior then to lead to her mother making that call.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's a little nuts that Donald Trump Jr. is harping on Biden's one accusation when his dad has an entire wikipedia article full of his accusations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tr … llegations

I'm not telling anyone to vote for someone they don't feel comfortable voting for.  Joe Biden is the nominee and if you think he's a rapist, you don't have to vote for anyone.  But I just find it funny that anyone thinks that there's one voter out there that would say "I believe Tara Reade.  Joe Biden is a rapist.  I'm going to vote for Donald Trump!"

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't doubt it's the voice of Tara Reade's mother, Jeanette Altimus. I don't doubt anything Altimus says -- which isn't substantial. She says that her daughter "had problems" with then-Senator Biden and couldn't "get through with her problems" and that she chose not to "go to the press" and made that choice "out of respect for him."

Altimus doesn't say that Biden assaulted Reade although she does indicate that whatever Reade had to say about Biden would have been damaging in a court of public opinion but maintains that Reade respected Biden.

What mother defending and believing her child would describe her daughter as having "respect" for her rapist? I know a victim might claim to respect the perpetrator to normalize the relationship -- but would that be said by a mother who believes her daughter's rape accusation?

To me, Altimus sounds like she's describing one of the many accounts of Biden being overly affectionate with women -- hugs that lasted too long, smelling hair, bumping foreheads, rubbing noses -- behaviours that a pre-civil rights man might think supportive and affirming only to realize that they are intrusive and hurtful. It sounds ridiculous to say that, but any man born before 1990 (like me) has likely harassed a woman in this manner and can (like me) learn to be better and realize that respect for women is conveyed through actions of listening and meaningful support for their ambitions and voices and not through any physical contact.

Another issue that we have with Reade is that she has gone from loathing world leaders to becoming infatuated with them and then flip-flopping. She lavishly praised Biden in 2016 - 2017, retweeted numerous articles alleging ties between Trump and Putin in 2016 and how Putin effectively legalized domestic assault on women. Then in 2018, she wrote:

Tara Reade wrote:

President Putin has a higher approval rating in America then the American President, particularly with women. President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity. https://web.archive.org/web/20190404043 … 4ca2a3a405

And in 2019:

Tara Reade wrote:

My best America embodies compassion; diversity, creativity, future oriented innovation and positive approaches to diplomacy. Further, America needs no more xenophobic rhetoric. When the anti-Russia, anti-Putin propaganda starts up, personally, I shut down. I love Russia, I love my Russian relatives and friends. And like most women across the world, I like President Putin… a lot, his shirt on or shirt off. https://web.archive.org/web/20190404044 … 1cdf4dfcaf

And then there's Reade's original account of Biden's behaviour where she insists that she was not sexually assaulted.

Reade said Biden’s senior staff protected the senator. She was considered a distraction. Reade said she didn’t consider the acts toward her sexualization. She instead compared her experience to being a lamp. “It’s pretty. Set it over there,” she said. “Then when it’s too bright, you throw it away.” https://www.theunion.com/news/local-new … te-office/

Reade is erratic and extreme in how smitten she becomes with political figures before the pendulum swings to her loathing them.

In cases like Weinstein and his like, there is an established pattern, Multiple women have come out with stories depicting the same methods of assault: the way Weinstein lured women into hotel rooms and his requests for massages and his use of female assistants to make the encounter seem professional at the start.

In Biden's case, there is an established pattern -- and that pattern reported by multiple women is one of overly prolonged and close gestures of affection. There is no common pattern of assault across the multiple accusations; it's harassment and that's not okay, but one pattern is based in hatred and violence and one is not.

And with Tara Reade, there's an established pattern as well: she allows imaginings to overrule reality. She retweeted articles on Putin making it legal for men to beat their wives, then she started writing fevered daydreams about Putin shirtless. She was escaping an abusive, traumatic marriage when she entered Biden's employ in 1993; she is inconsistent and wildly variable.

I don't doubt that she believes what she's said when she's said it: she believed it when she called Biden a speaker of truth, when she called Putin a domestic abuser, when she called him an interfering force in the 2016 elections. She believed it when she said that Biden's behaviour towards her wasn't sexual and when she said that he sexually assaulted her and that Putin is a wifebeater and that he's admired by most women.

I don't think Reade has an agenda or is a Russian agent or is trying to support a Trump victory or is trying to win fame -- I think she isn't well.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well even with the mother's call, I'm not sure if that changes much.  Biden denies it, Reade doesn't, it's a stalemate.  Trump has 25 women accusing him of harassment.  Trump Jr., a human trash can, has said women who don't wish to be harassed ought to become kindergarten teachers, and that he's more concerned about his sons being falsely charged than his daughters being assaulted.  Lunatic. 

In other news, appears Kim Jong-Un is dead or at least a vegetable.

1,160 (edited by Slider_Sarah 2020-04-25 16:00:31)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I cannot emphasize enough in the name of Chaser9, Brand_S, Wrong_Arturo and Sarah_Slider that the opinions in this post do not reflect those of the Sliders.tv community.

You wrote my name wrong wink

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I cannot emphasize enough in the name of Rembrandt's AIDS ribbons, Rembrandt's throat relaxants, Rembrandt's shotguns and Rembrandt's shrine that the error is mine and mine alone as are any and all political opinions and assessments of Tara Reade.

Look, I'm just one SLIDERS fan with questionable sanity (Transmodiar has said that SLIDERS REBORN was the work of a crazy person and he helped me write it), I got the number of Ontario sick days wrong, I mistakenly thought Clinton Derricks was in "The Alternateville Horror" and I mistakenly wrote the day of the first slide as March 22, 1995 when it was actually September 27, 1994 and I forgot that Deric was an acronym for the name of the robot. I don't know everything and people who can't admit ignorance or error end up recommending Lysol injections as an antiviral.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/b … 76cac68a2b

So, after a nasty back and forth on Twitter between Tara Reade (now McCable), writer Joan Walsh, and Lynn Hummer, the founder of a California horse rescue, The Medium dug into it.  Mrs. Hummer has extensive evidence to back up her claims that "Tara Reade stole from me. She lied to me. She stole from my organization. She manipulated me and she duped me. I want that to be shared because it’s important information. And I have documentation, images and emails to prove it."

The accusation here is that Tara was deceitful in actions pertaining to his horse rescue.  Her reaction was almost Trump-like, threatening to sue Hummer as well as Joan Walsh.  I hate to just dismiss someone based on what they have done recently, but the reality is she never spoke ill about Joe Biden for 2.5 decades.  Quite the opposite, she bragged about working for him.  All we have is her accusation, what vague details her brother and another friend remember, and the mother supposedly phoning into Larry King.  Reade claimed to have reported the harassment to 4 different agencies at the time, but none of them have a record of it.  No one in Biden's office backs her story up. 

Again, is it not possible that she was fired, became angry about that, and told her mother a story to cover for being canned?  Perhaps not, but even the mother's questioning on CNN was strange.  She cited it as a "problem," but did not seem to come close to intimating an assault occurred that might require police involvement.  The mother asks Larry, "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."  That makes no sense.  You're only recourse is the press?  But you have respect for him, AFTER he allegedly assaults you? 

It brings me back to the Kavanaugh/Ford allegations.  That was even longer back in time, and while it's probable that Kavanaugh went a bit too far while drunk, Dr. Ford simply couldn't recall details, and even the "assault" itself really only came to light for her through hypnosis, which is about as scientific as having your palm read.  At the same time, these incidents are traumatizing, and the victims often do not want to bring them to light, simply because they often wish to forget them.  Perahps Ms. Reade has a Stockholm Syndrome at work, but I mean, she only worked for Biden for a few months, yet as I said, continued to praise him, and even now doesn't seem to particularly wish to vilify him.  It's just very strange, but like Dr. Ford, the special interests get their claws in, and it's simply 2,000 times worse for the alleged victim.

1,163 (edited by ireactions 2020-04-27 11:01:38)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm uncomfortable calling Tara Reade a liar and the Krassenstein brothers who wrote that Medium article are like the Alex Jones of the left who made money in fraudulent investment schemes. That said, I have been following their work. I put no credence in their inflammatory editorials -- but they linked to Reade's past tweets and medium posts as archived or screenshotted by others. If they told me 2 + 2 equaled four, I'd check their math -- and I have been checking their math where Reade is concerned and the Krassensteins seem to be onto something with Reade just as a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'm uncomfortable not believing a woman who says she's been assaulted, but if I'm to believe everything Tara Reade says, then I also have to believe that:

  • Sexual assault was unheard of in 1993 when the Senate and Supreme Court scandals had been front page news a year previous.

  • She met Joe Biden in a public, foot-traffic heavy hallway of a government building and he assaulted her in a private area of this open, pedestrian-prone space.

  • Her mother would describe her daughter's rapist as someone for whom her child had "respect" and that her only option was "the press" (as opposed to the police).

  • Reade fervently adored Biden (as she stated herself over social media from California) while despising him for raping her.

  • Reade wasn't sexually assaulted (as she said herself in The Union) and was sexually assaulted (as she said in her podcast).

  • Reade absolutely loves Russia (as she said in her self-posted Medium articles) but despises Russia for legalizing domestic abuse (as she said on Twitter) while loving Putin (as she said on Medium) and her self-posted Medium articles were taken out of context (by herself?) from a novel she was writing.

EDITED TO ADD: Reade is now saying that the posts that she wrote about loving Russia with all her heart which were taken out of context when she posted them on Medium herself were also not written by her and in fact written by hackers who stole her account information.


Her stories don't make any sense to me and I would be extremely cautious because believing any one thing Reade says means dismissing everything else she's ever said.

People who are as erratic as this will sometimes engage in fraud because they're flailing desperately for any markers of stability. I don't think Reade is well and as someone with his own mental illness issues, I hope that we can be kind.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Tara Reade's former neighbour and a co-worker have come forward and said that Reade told them her story of Biden assaulting her in the 90s:

https://www.businessinsider.com/former- … 020-4?op=1

Hmmm. I think I'll go back to the starting point of #BelieveWomen and then go from from there. I'll be back.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I had wondered what label they would give an economic downturn following the Coronavirus shut down.  I bet this one will stick - “The Great Repression” (since we technically did it on purpose):

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-g … 2020-04-27

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I cannot emphasize enough in the name of Rembrandt's AIDS ribbons, Rembrandt's throat relaxants, Rembrandt's shotguns and Rembrandt's shrine that the error is mine and mine alone as are any and all political opinions and assessments of Tara Reade.

Look, I'm just one SLIDERS fan with questionable sanity (Transmodiar has said that SLIDERS REBORN was the work of a crazy person and he helped me write it), I got the number of Ontario sick days wrong, I mistakenly thought Clinton Derricks was in "The Alternateville Horror" and I mistakenly wrote the day of the first slide as March 22, 1995 when it was actually September 27, 1994 and I forgot that Deric was an acronym for the name of the robot. I don't know everything and people who can't admit ignorance or error end up recommending Lysol injections as an antiviral.

Ah, I didn't mind smile Honestly it was a good excuse to actually post for once.

I have nothing really to add to this particular conversation at the moment but I did want to say that I enjoy reading this topic in particular as a lot of the things that come up in this thread never make it to the news over here.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

And now for something completely different: SUPERGIRL!

Decades ago, during Season 2 of SUPERGIRL, Dean Cain's recurring role as Kara Danvers' adoptive, missing father took prominence. Cain's Jeremiah Danvers was revealed as a rescued prisoner of Cadmus, the anti-alien terrorist group. But once welcomed back, Jeremiah broke into the DEO to steal weapons technology and was revealed to be in league with Cadmus and their plot to massacre all aliens.

Jeremiah went on the run as a fugitive with Cadmus' leader, Lillian Luthor, with Kara and Alex Danvers now forced to hunt down their father and demand answers as to his betrayal. Jeremiah's final appearance showed him conferring with Lillian Luthor who agreed that as part of their deal, Cadmus would be building... something... for Jeremiah. That was it; Jeremiah never reappeared except as a telepathic illusion. Lillian Luthor returned in the Season 2 finale and said that she had no idea where Jeremiah was and the character was never referred to again until Season 5 when it was established that Jeremiah had died off camera of a stroke while doing charity work.

What happened? Well, during Season 2, Dean Cain supported Donald Trump's electoral campaign. SUPERGIRL cut all ties with Cain and declined to have him on set again, leaving Jeremiah's arc unfinished.

Looking at Season 2 -- it didn't register at the time, but a second look indicates that Jeremiah's intentions were somewhat present: Cadmus was keen to kill all alien immigrants. Jeremiah instead provided the blueprints and plans to build a spacefleet to send the aliens back to their homeworlds which would have spared Kara as well. The information is present, but Jeremiah never appeared onscreen to take ownership of this choice, establish his reasons and answer to Kara and Alex, so it never *felt* like his motives were explained.

And ultimately, SUPERGIRL betrayed itself and its narrative obligations. While it asserted the moral high ground by kicking Dean Cain off the set, it would a few months later revealed that it had blown up that high ground long ago when showrunner Andrew Kreisberg was revealed to be an unrepentant sexual harasser who would be fired off all his shows. Trump supporter is not always a full character description, but sexual harasser is pretty comprehensive. But regardless of Kreisberg's dismissal, Cain was no longer wanted and Season 5 now attempts to write Cain an exit story with "Alex in Wonderland" even though only his body double appears, seen from behind.

SUPERGIRL attempts to turn into the spin by having Alex withdraw into a fantasy world, revisit her final confrontation with Jeremiah (or rather, the back of his head while he's turned away from her) and it defines Jeremiah's death entirely in terms of absence. Jeremiah is away: he cannot explain himself, he cannot give Alex closure, he's never even seen as in an image, he can never justify or validate anything he did. Death isn't random like Professor Stein getting shot by an anonymous Nazi goon and end his story as a hero. Or Dr. Henry Allen being executed in a hostage situation and assuring Barry that his heroism is his identity and choice and not a front or a fake. Or like Oliver giving his life to save worlds.

Instead, Jeremiah's death is confusing, disorienting, inexplicable, unsatisfying and devoid of answers and explanations. Throughout the episode, Alex withdraws from the question by escaping into a virtual reality fantasy. And then by the end, she withdraws from the question again by conceding that she's simply never going to find answers. We're never going to know why Informant insisted on supporting Donald Trump after 25 assault allegations and over 50,000 dead. We can only speculate, theorize and contemplate our questions and know that we'll need to learn to live with them.


I'm kind of worried about this Tara Reade thing, guys. Reade's story seemed like something she'd thrown together recently for whatever reason, but it's starting to look like her story has been present but told only to a few in the 90s. We shouldn't blow it off just because Trump has 25 rape accusations to Biden's one.

I think it's time for Biden to answer to these allegations personally.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Tara Reade's former neighbour and a co-worker have come forward and said that Reade told them her story of Biden assaulting her in the 90s:

https://www.businessinsider.com/former- … 020-4?op=1

Hmmm. I think I'll go back to the starting point of #BelieveWomen and then go from from there. I'll be back.

Well the neighbor is still voting for Biden, so go figure.  Idk what else to say, Biden is never going to admit anything.

TemporalFlux wrote:

I had wondered what label they would give an economic downturn following the Coronavirus shut down.  I bet this one will stick - “The Great Repression” (since we technically did it on purpose):

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-g … 2020-04-27

It's already BAD.  They mention inflation, well have they been in a supermarket?  The prices are obscene!

1,169 (edited by ireactions 2020-04-28 11:33:02)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:
ireactions wrote:

Tara Reade's former neighbour and a co-worker have come forward and said that Reade told them her story of Biden assaulting her in the 90s:

https://www.businessinsider.com/former- … 020-4?op=1

Hmmm. I think I'll go back to the starting point of #BelieveWomen and then go from from there. I'll be back.

Well the neighbor is still voting for Biden, so go figure.  Idk what else to say, Biden is never going to admit anything.

He needs to answer: does he remember Reade? What were the substance of their interactions? Why was she let go from his office? What harassment did he engage in towards her? He should be honest and confess if he engaged in overlong hugs / nose bumps / forehead rubs / hands on waists and shoulders. He can deny that he did anything sexual including penetrating her with his fingers. He can point out that Reade's story has him doing that in a public hallway of the building which is absurd.

He can say that he cannot comment on why Reade may have told her friends and neighbour and family of this, but that Reade was dismissed because she was erratic and prone to fabricating stories which we've seen a pattern of in her scamming a horse rescue not for profit. He can say that he urges everyone to believe women, but that believing is a starting point: believing means listening to everything they've ever said which in Reade's case includes saying that Biden was a great boss and that he could be trusted and that nothing he did towards her was sexual in addition to saying that he raped her and that he's a liar and that he's a terrible person.

He can say that he hopes Reade finds help and peace and that he didn't assault her; that he was devoted to his wife and that he would never have lingered at work because he was always racing to get the train home to his family. He can open up his personnel records and let CNN comb through them.

EDITED TO ADD: The Atlantic and others are calling on Biden to open his Senate office records -- currently housed at the University of Delaware -- and let the press review them. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … rs/610801/

I'm going to be frank; I'm scared that I may have been supporting a rapist. I can't imagine that warm grandfather raping a woman, but I myself am a reformed harasser of women. I did not assault anyone, but I made inappropriate and intrusive physical contact and unwelcome remarks and looked too long and stood too close and followed women around campus when I was a student. I am deeply ashamed of my past and I can tell you from experience that who we see in the mirror today is rarely who we were even a mere 10 - 15 years ago.

I wasn't always a figure of platonic female friendship whose social circle is entirely women. Biden was not always his grandfather persona. Who was in he in 1993?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Could this be the escape clause?

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news … tion-69495

On Monday, officials in New York announced the cancellation of the state’s Democratic presidential primary, calling the event “essentially a beauty contest,” and a risk to public health in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.


Although Bernie Sanders is officially out of the race, Biden does not yet have an overall majority of convention delegates. As of April 27, the former vice president has 1,305 of the 1,991 delegates needed to clinch a first-round coronation at the party’s convention. New York offered 320 delegates up for grabs, 274 pledged to the primary winner; a prize that would have brought Biden closer to the nomination.

If New York’s decision triggers other states to cancel their own primaries, it is entirely possible that Biden could arrive at the Democratic convention without a guarantee of the nomination. 

Assuming the convention begins without a majority of delegates pledged to Biden, the nomination process, during which delegates conduct floor votes, would become a live-fire exercise, rather than a pro forma step in Biden’s coronation as nominee.

If Biden does not secure a majority on the first ballot, delegates could offer another candidate from the floor.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate


Well, I've re-read Tara Reade's accusation towards Biden from the transcript podcast. It sounds ludicrous to think that Biden would rape a woman in an open hallway. I've re-read all of her erotica over Vladimir Putin. It's insane and delusional. I've re-read the transcript of her mother's call to Larry King. It doesn't sound like it's reporting a rape in any way. I've re-read the story of Reade's co-worker in California saying she'd heard Reade's story in the 90s and Reade's neighbour saying the same, indicating these events weren't concocted in the last few years by a Putin fangirl and have been in Reade's mind since 1993 and that Reade is a deeply traumatized, troubled person in agony. But her story sounding unlikely to me does not mean that it's untrue.

Reade comes off as incredibly erratic, but erratic people can be rape victims. We can't dismiss her story as a recent fabrication anymore, and we should operate on the presumption that a woman who says she was raped is telling the truth until we receive information to the contrary. Which means that it is really down to Joe Biden who must unseal his personal Senatorial papers and release them to a third party and submit to an independent investigation of his life in 1993.

This Tara Reade story has not gone away and has continued to accumulate corroboration of Reade having shared her story as early as the mid-90s -- whether or not that story is true. How much will it snowball? Not sure. Biden's opponent has 25 rape accusers. Biden has one. But the longer it goes unanswered, the more it will entangle itself with Biden's campaign and our chances of ousting Donald Trump.

For the sake of his supporters from whom Biden is asking trust and funds and votes, he needs to answer the accusations and share every recollection and scrap of paper he has on Reade's 1993 employment with him.

Once, over dinner, I had to tell my niece about every woman I'd ever stalked and harassed in university. It was a difficult and shameful conversation, but she is the person I trust most. It was better to confess than to leave that part of my life blank to her. That would have allowed her or others to fill it in with the worst suppositions and imaginings and accusations. To not confess could have left her thinking that I hadn't changed or wouldn't be willing to face my misdeeds. I think a politician who wants his constituents to trust him needs to do the same if only for their emotional well-being.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Biden and Hillary had a joint event today where she endorsed him.  First of all, Hillary is so much more likable when she's not running for something.  I don't know if she tenses up, but she shows zero personality on the campaign trail.  Today, she was lively and full of personality.  If she'd campaigned like she acted today, she would've won.  I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that since her ratings are usually the highest when she's not in an election.

Second, I thought Biden was good again.  He wasn't necessarily sharp, but he definitely didn't seem slow.  I know these are events that he can prepare for and are controlled by his team, but if he truly has dementia or if he's lost several steps, that's not something you can cover up.  My grandfather used to be quick and sharp, and as he got older, he got slower and slower.  Eventually, you could always tell.  I think with Biden, you'd always be able to tell.  I guess we'll see.  The good news is that I think a lot of the campaign will be virtual, and I still don't think there's a single undecided voter in the country.


Regarding Tara Reade, I'm hoping Biden cooperates in any way he can.  I don't know if he did it, and I don't really know how it can be confirmed one way or another.  The Russian connections dirty up the water significantly.  And while it's bad for Biden, the Trump campaign really can't win points from it since they have high ground at all on that issue.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

A lot of people think Biden is experiencing cognitive decline. But another possibility: Biden as a child suffered from a stutter. In adolescence, Biden learned various techniques to manage, control and isolate his speech difficulties. But in controlling his stutter, he seemed to cede control in other areas.

Throughout his career, Biden has been described as a "gaffe machine" and throughout his time with Obama, Biden blabbered and babbled, often making potentially costly errors of impulsivity. He encouraged Senator Chuck Graham, a stranger to him, to stand up at a rally, only to realize upon closer view that Senator Graham was in a wheelchair. Biden apologized and asked the audience to stand for Graham, a brilliant self-correction. He also dropped F-bombs into live mics, neglected to thank the individuals he quoted in speeches (which made it plagiarism), and now it looks like in Biden's advancing years, the methods that once mastered his stutter have led to often garbled, confused statements and he's now he's trying to control it with retraint.


... why isn't Biden responding to the Reade allegations? The worst possibility -- and I hope it isn't the case -- is that it's true and Biden is hoping to stonewall. Or could the Biden campaign be trying to investigate Reade's ties to Russia and lying in wait to reveal something?

However, the Biden campaign has also presented talking points to Democrats for responding to questions about Reade and the talking points, while emphasizing Biden's support for women, falsely declare that the New York Times article cleared Biden. That's simply not true; it was inconclusive, yet Biden has commanded his surrogates and potential vice presidents to misrepresent the Times investigation as proving Reade's claims false. They're trying to starve the story of any further news coverage and let it die out by not feeding it any more information. Why?

Assuming innocence -- could it be that Biden doesn't remember Tara Reade? And can't offer any answers? And saying that he has no memory of her would only allow further claims to fill in the gap of information with the worst of speculations? The other possibility is that while Biden didn't rape Reade, he touched her legs, shoulder and neck, rubbed noses with her, smelled her hair and confessing to that paves the way to the public assuming he did the rest and so he's sealed that off.

This is something I've seen people do in this forum: I said that Biden had only one accusation of assault and a poster provided a lengthy list of names of other Biden accusers -- except those women were not alleging assault. Touching someone intrusively on the shoulder / arm / leg / neck / face is not the same as raping someone. Neither is acceptable, but intrusive touching can be poor social calibration, ignorance, outdated views of women -- which can be corrected with understanding and empathy. Raping someone is an act of violence and willful harm meant specifically to injure and damage.

One of my favourite TV shows, CHUCK, has lengthy comedy scenes of two Best Buy salesmen sexually harassing women and being met with slaps to the face and other well-deserved punishment. At the time, I thought it was funny and acceptable because the men always got their comeuppance. Watching it today, I am deeply disturbed that CHUCK never devotes any screentime to how the women must feel to be groped, tricked, leered at and surveilled and assumes that their putting a fist into their harasser's faces is sufficient. I've met a lot of women since I first saw CHUCK and listened.


Slate.com had an interesting perspective: that we need not support Joe Biden because we think him the living embodiment of our standards and values. Instead, it suggests that those of us with reservations about Biden view him not as our ally but as our chosen enemy -- with the perspective that someone in authority will always stand in the way of Medicare For All, repairing the damage to our planet, universal basic income -- and a presidential election is a chance to choose whether we want that person standing in the way to be a deranged lunatic or someone who can be swayed by reason and knowledge.

Slate.com wrote:

No one candidate will ever be a perfect leader in any movement’s eyes. Activists accept they’ll have to put political pressure on—and occasionally argue with—whoever wins the election.

The question, for them, is which elected official they’d rather be up against, considering the respective communities the candidates are beholden to and their respective abilities to be swayed. Would Ocasio-Cortez rather push Trump to halt deportations, or Biden? Would #MeToo activists rather mobilize for sexual harassment legislation under a Trump administration, or a Biden one? It’s not about accepting a lesser of two evils. It’s about choosing an opponent.

The choosing-an-opponent framework doesn’t require any moral concessions or wavering on values, because there’s no wholesale acceptance involved. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … -2020.html

Can we do that? Vote Biden! He only wants to do one term anyway and it'll be easier to get Andrew Yang in 2024.

1,174 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-04-29 22:58:46)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TF, I'm not sure about your "theory" on the escape clause, ha ha, because Ohio finally had their primary, and it was mail in only.  NJ has mailed ballots out without asking, for instance.  I truly don't understand the NY decision, and don't agree with it, especially since it was going to be mail in only.  Very bizarre.  If more states canceled theirs, there would be an uproar.

https://arcdigital.media/a-tale-of-two- … 4504d6228a

ireactions, here's a LONG, and I mean LONG winded article I suggest reading.  It's an opinion piece for sure, but this writer attempts to figure out who has the more plausible assault claim, Reade or Christine Ford.  I was able to get through the whole thing, and ironically, her conclusions are basically in line with my feelings on both women's accusations.

As for "Sleepy Joe," the problem is that when Biden tries to speak on issues he's just not that great with, he fumbles.  It's not dementia, it's called trying to do an oral presentation on a book you were too lazy to read!  He's not Bernie or Warren, they are policy wonks.  But he's also not going to advise people to stick a UV light up their ass either.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I really like and appreciate Cathy Young's writing. But at the end of the day, women suffer so much for accusing perpetrators of rape. There is no upside to doing so which makes false accusations unlikely unless the accuser is mentally ill and delusional and prone to fraud and falsehoods and unable to distinguish fantasy from reality and perpetually altering their accounts of past events or potentially hired by Russia -- all of which seems possible given Reade's online behaviour from her Putin fetish to her revisions to her accounts of Biden's behaviour to her claims that her pro-Russia screeds were taken out of context when she posted them online or written by hackers using her accounts.

But we should believe women anyway until given reason not to and it is entirely Biden's responsibility to furnish those reasons for us with his own memories and documents.

Thus far, he has not. The officially unofficial word from inside Biden's campaign: he hasn't responded to Tara Reade's accusations yet because he is unwilling to speak poorly of her. He feels that saying that she is lying would also call any woman reporting assault to be a liar. That is not something he wants to do. But he is aware that he will have to eventually respond to the accusations directly.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wonder if the Democrats are putting off the investigation until after the election.  I think they'd be more likely to allow Biden to be impeached if they won the White House.  I think less Democrats are fanatical about Biden than Republicans are for Trump.  They might even win political capital by doing the right thing and removing their own president.  And if they had someone like Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, Warren, or Harris as the VP, they wouldn't even miss a beat.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://deadline.com/2020/04/joe-biden- … 202922618/

Biden will speak on Friday and respond to the accusation.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not sure "take out the trash day" applies anymore in the current media landscape, but points for trying

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

A former Detroit prosecutor wrote an op-ed saying that Reade's story has a lot of points of suspicion. In addition to all her doubtful claims (that sexual assault wasn't understood in 1993, that Biden would rape her in a public hallway), obvious mental illness (her infatuation with a brutal dictator), penchant for contradictory lies (saying her self-posted Putin essays were taken out of context from a novel she was writing and also not written by her at all), her mother describing her child's supposed rapist as a figure of "respect" for whom the only recourse was "the press," Michael J. Stern points out:

Her story has changed, saying that Biden touched her non-sexually but intrusively to saying he raped her -- and her reasoning is that reporters weren't interested in her reporting rape which seems unlikely given how every reporter wants a scoop.

Her documents are missing: despite claiming she made a formal complaint, she has no copy of it for herself -- yet she kept her employment records outside of this complaint which leaves me wondering if this complaint even exists.

Her story doesn't come with a date; she says she can't remember when it happened -- but it also means that Biden can't use his 1993 calendar to prove himself elsewhere.

Her claim for why she was fired has changed, first saying she was dismissed for refusing to serve drinks; then saying she was fired for filing a complaint. This is not a trivial discrepancy.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 046962001/

Michael Stern doesn't believe Reade. And I think Reade's story is suspicious and it's possible the Biden campaign wanted to let the story fade out based on how Reade's story and Reade herself are incoherent (my Putin fan fiction that I posted myself was taken out of context from a novel I was writing and also I didn't write it I was hacked). She seems like an erratic liar.

But she might also be erratic because she was sexually traumatized and it isn't Michael Stern's job to defend Joe Biden; that's Joe Biden's job.

1,180 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-04-30 20:13:17)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So the conclusion, or in reality, opinion, that Cathy Young was left with in that article I posted was similar to mine.  In the case of Dr. Christine Ford, it's likely that she was briefly jumped on by a wasted Brett Kavanaugh, but that was the limit of it, and his 4 decade life since has been exemplary, politics aside.  He was likely so hammered he has no memory of the night in question.  Once her primary witness refused to back her in public, that should have been the end of it.  They never should have brought her into testify.  In the case of Ms. Reade, who sadly had to survive domestic abuse, Young's view was that the assault, largely in the open, did not happen.  She felt that since Biden had no pattern of this kind of behavior at the time, in addition to high scrutiny for sexual harassment going around Congress, it simply wasn't likely.  In addition, Reade's own words, her mother's call, etc, seemed to show anger with the Biden staff and not the Senator.  It's possible she created this memory in her mind, as a result of the actual abuse she received, but I'm not a psychiatrist.

I would use the Corey Feldman example of how these things can happen.  Scott Schwartz, fellow child actor from The Toy and A Christmas Story, recently did an interview where he tears into Feldman.  He says these child pedo parties never occurred the way Corey claims, and that Charlie Sheen never molested Corey Haim.  In fact, the one who did was a low-life who Feldman kept in his company for decades despite KNOWING what this guy did to Haim.  Similar to how Feldman defends Michael Jackson.  Anyway, Schwartz went on to say that Sheen stole a porn star away from Feldman, which made him forever irate with him.  At some point, the same low-life who molested Haim sold a story to the tabloids about Sheen, with Feldman backing him up.  It's all a lie, and Haim was dead and couldn't refute it though his family did so.  Schwartz said Corey LOVES playing the victim.

What does that have to do with this?  Only that people make exaggerated and false accusations about famous people all the time.  It gains them fame themselves and definitely attention.  Particularly if it's an event that is so long ago, it's literally impossible to find out the truth.  Supposedly the Biden campaign is rifling through his old Senate documents as we speak, with the far left accusing them of covering up whatever they find.  My guess is they won't find anything, just like the other agencies Reade supposedly reported it to found nothing.  MSNBC covered this last night, which caused many liberals to react angrily against MSNBC!  I say no, just wait, let them all cover it now, and get it over with, because IMO there's no story there.

I would expect VP Biden tomorrow morning to express sympathy for whatever pain Ms. Reade is going through, and who knows, he might even invite her to speak to him.  He might apologize for having potentially said something crass to her back then or the like.  In no way is he going to shockingly admit to it.  I myself am still trying to understand Reade's end game here?  I mean, what does she want from Biden?  An apology?  His dropping out?  Neither of those are going to happen.  Clearly she pissed that horse rescue lady off, and her reaction to her on Twitter was pretty bad.  I go back to the Feldman story, I just think Tara Reade has cultivated this thing where she plays the victim.  She did it to the horse woman, and is doing it again.

PS: Young's last comment was that "Believe the Woman" is simply not reasonable nor sustainable, and throws due process out the window.

PS PS: Donald Trump, of all people, said Biden should respond, and that "I know all about false accusations, it could be false."

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, Trump is having a rare moment of strategic clarity. He has over 25 assault accusations; attacking Biden over Reade would only draw attention to his crimes. Maybe he should tell his son that. As Slider_Quinn21 notes, it's a non-starter as a point of attack for the Trump campaign because no sensible person will refuse to vote for a man with one assault accusation to favour a man with two dozen and more.


Biden has spoken, first on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ … 2865221937

And then in a statement posted on Medium: https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/statement- … 9593bd3012

I reserve the right to change my opinion on this at any time, but Biden has done most of what I've asked. He has spoken directly and denied the allegations. He has asked that the National Archives divulge any documentation relating to Tara Reade. He has refused to open his archives in the University of Delaware's basement, however, on the grounds that (a) they contain confidential secrets of state (b) do not contain personnel records and (c) a search for personnel records that aren't in there could create an expectation of publicizing private contents before the redactions for security and privacy have been made. This sounds reasonable to me, although I reserve the right to alter that view should new information come to light.

The university has further clarified that the documents are still being sorted and reviewed, so no search is even possible at this time.

Biden refused to elaborate on Reade's employment in his office and he conveyed his reasons for that as well. He is refusing to characterize Reade in any way; he has declared that he will not pursue any action against her whether legal or in the court of public opinion other than to say that he did not assault her. In doing so, Biden has ensured that nothing he says to deny the allegations can serve to harm other female accusers, something he is clearly keen to avoid.

MSNBC fixated on demanding that Biden explain how he can say that women should be believed and then say that Reade is lying. Biden replied that women should be presumed to be telling the truth at the outset and then their claims must be evaluated. The fixation on rhetoric is relevant but not particularly informative when it comes to facts. Biden refused to speculate on Reade's motives or goals. However, he did state that he does not have nondisclosure agreements with anyone. This is significant as many wealthy sexual predators buy silence from their victims in this manner.

Watching Biden speak, I saw what he would not express -- anger and hurt and grief. I could see fury in his eyes that he would contain with a breath and with silence, not wanting to voice contempt or disdain that could make any female accuser think she'd be similarly silenced, instead emphasizing that Tara Reade has the right to say whatever she wants just as Joe Biden has the right to say it isn't true.

It was a very fine line of refuting the allegation while insisting that women should be heard when they make such allegations and I can see why it took so long for Biden to decide how he wanted to respond to this. There was a muted, quiet astonishment in his face in moments, a shock that someone would accuse him of attacking them physically matched with a grim awareness of what those motives could be -- attention, a smear campaign plotted by a foreign power, a mental illness that has chosen him as its target -- and then a refusal to state those suspicions as they would be (a) speculative and (b) demeaning to women with genuine allegations.

Look, I don't read people perfectly or even well; I've had to buy books on facial expressions. But I said what Biden had to do to win my trust back and he's done 3/4 of it. The 1/4 he didn't do -- a full account of his encounters with Reade -- he's given his reasons for why he won't divulge that outside of agreeing to provide whatever paperwork he has. But Biden has refused to express hostility, refused to try to silence Reade, agreed to divulge his papers relating to Reade, explained why he won't open up the Delaware-housed documents, controlled his anger and outrage -- so for now -- FOR NOW -- I believe Joe Biden and I believe in him.

And I know how very important it is to Grandpop that a Canadian who can't vote for him is on his side.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I cannot understand what women go through and all I can really do is empathize.  Whenever I try to put myself into the mind of a young woman who feels vulnerable and scared and powerless, I struggle with the idea that I'm either using hyperbole or not going far enough.  I can walk to my car in a dark parking lot with a reasonable amount of likelihood that I'll be okay.  It wouldn't even occur to me where to park for highest safety, who to walk out with, or who to smile at.  Whenever I think of the female experience, I tend to think about the societal benefits of being a woman - free drinks and meals, the ability to wildly change/improve appearance with ease, what I consider to be deeper connections with other people and themselves, etc.  The rough stuff either doesn't occur to me (bad) or is too scary to consider (bad).  Having a daughter helps, but when I think about her, it scares me way too much to even consider letting her out into the world (luckily she can't even crawl so I have some time to get over that).

All that being said to say that I want women to feel comfortable coming forward, and I want society and the authorities to take every account seriously and perhaps even operate on a "true until proven false".  The problem being - how do you prove a "he said, she said" item true or false?  Barring physical evidence, it comes down to a simple "what you believe".  People can give heart-wrenching accounts, but we know that there are people who can perfectly pretend to have certain reactions and plenty of real stories to capture. 

Tara Reade could easily be a scared woman who is finally facing her assaulter.  She could also be a Putin fanatic who is making up a story for Russian money to help Trump get elected.  Heck, both could be true.

What sucks is that women need to believe her because if she's lying, it hurts all women.  We can't weaponize sexual assault for political gain because it hurts all women and gives powerful men an escape clause to get away with it.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I watched Morning Mika grilling Biden as best as she could, because frankly, there's not a ton she could have asked which he didn't answer.  The University of Delaware records thing is a joke.  Do we expect a university that is currently CLOSED to send staff in just to sift through his records?  It's not a police investigation.  Ms. Reade kept employment records, according to her own statements, which most of us never would bother with.  Yet she did not keep a copy of the COMPLAINT she filed??  Give me a break.  The reason Trump didn't hit Joe on this was because Trump knows this stuff all too well, and likely doesn't believe the claim, and is not going to be dumb enough to pile on when there's a good chance he'll be made the fool.  Yes, I know, this is Trump, but he's not an idiot on these matters.  Biden's best answer was that Delaware would not have personnel records, which is true.  Any employer has to safeguard those, and turning them over to the public would be highly unethical.  As I've said, I do not expect the National Archives to find the complaint, because it didn't exist.  None of this will satisfy the rapid left though, they hate Biden seemingly more than Trump, which makes them completely illogical.

SQ21, I do not believe Reade is politically motivated at all.  She probably intends to vote for Biden anyway, ha ha.  Some people just want to be super victim.  When questioned about her changing story, Reade claims her therapist was told the full story all along, but she will not release her therapist's notes.  Yet demands Biden release everything he's got.  Lastly, she cannot remember a single vivid detail about the incident's date, time, or location.  Victims of assault will remember where it happened, she cannot, just saying it was in a hallway somewhere in the Capitol.  Obviously she'll be interviewed by Fox News on Sunday, but I cannot see how this continues to be reported on?  Either there's a smoking gun or there isn't.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I have little doubt that something happened between Reade and Biden.  My guess is that it was something less lurid than Republicans would like but also more problematic than Democrats would be comfortable with.

1,185 (edited by ireactions 2020-05-01 20:58:24)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, Biden has a reputation for being physically intrusive with people -- not just women. It's an outdated attitude and it leaves Biden open to charges of sexual harassment and the fact that it wasn't intended sexually (which Reade herself originally claimed) is meaningless if the woman on the receiving end perceives it otherwise.


The Washington Post expanded more on how Biden would not want his Delaware-based records opened up because they contain numerous private conversations and communications that could be easily mined for political attacks and no candidate running for office would release those.

Again, I really have a lot of admiration for Biden refusing to speak poorly of Reade in any way or speculate as to her motives (at least not in a public statement), declaring that he would not pursue any reprisal against her, and simply saying that her accusation is untrue. His self-control and awareness of all the women who aren't Reade was admirable. At least that's how it looked to me. Anyway, here's a transcript.

BRZEZINSKI: "Mr. Vice President, thank you for coming on the show this morning. We have a lot of questions to ask you."

BIDEN: "Thank you for having me."

BRZEZINSKI: "We’ll ask you questions about how you would handle this pandemic, the campaign, and other news of the day. For the start, it is just you and me. I want to get right to the allegation made against you by Tara Reade. So the former Senate aide accuses you of sexual assault. To our viewers, please excuse the graphic nature of this, but we want to make sure there is no question about what we are talking about. She says in 1993, Mr. Vice President, you pinned her against a wall and reached under her clothing and penetrated her with your fingers. Would you please go on the record with the American people? Did you sexually assault Tara Reade?"

BIDEN: "No. It is not true. I’m saying unequivocally: It never, never happened. And it didn’t. It never happened."

BRZEZINSKI: "Do you remember her? Do you remember any types of complaints she might have made?"

BIDEN: "I don’t remember any type of complaint she may have made. It was 27 years ago. I don’t remember, nor does anyone else that I’m aware of. And the fact is that I don’t remember. I don’t remember any complaint ever having been made."

BRZEZINSKI: "Have you or your campaign -- have you reached out to her?"

BIDEN: "No. I have not reached out to her. It was 27 years ago. It never happened. When she first made the claim, we made it clear that it never happened. And that’s as simple as that."

BRZEZINSKI: "In the past 30 minutes or so, you released a statement on Medium, and, among other things, you write this: “There is only one place a complaint of this kind could be, the National Archives. I am requesting that the secretary of state” -- the Senate -- 'ask the Archives to identify any record of the complaint she alleges she filed … If there was any such complaint, the record will be there.' Are you preparing us for a complaint that might be revealed in some way? Are you confident there is nothing?"

BIDEN: "I’m confident there is nothing. No one ever brought it to the attention of me 27 years ago … No one that I’m aware of in my campaign -- excuse me, in my Senate office at the time -- is aware of any such request. And -- or of any such complaint. And so I’m not worried about it at all. If there is a complaint, that’s where it would be, and that’s where it would be filed. And if it’s there, put it out, but I have never seen it. No one has that I’m aware of."

BRZEZINSKI: "The New York Times has investigated this exhaustively. They didn’t find any of your staff were able to corroborate the details of this allegation. She did file a police report a few weeks ago with the D.C. police. But since you want to set the record straight, why limit this only to Tara Reade? Why not release any complaints that had been made against you during your Senate career?"

BIDEN: "I’m prepared to do that. To the best of my knowledge there have been no complaints made against me in my Senate career or my office, or anything I ran. Look, this is an open book. There is nothing for me to hide. Nothing at all.

BRZEZINSKI: "You were unequivocal in 2018 during the Kavanaugh controversy and hearings that women should be believed. You said this: 'For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights, the focus nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she is talking about is real. Whether or not she forgets the facts, whether or not it has been made worse or better over time.' Going to be going on national television on Sunday, Tara Reade is coming forward in the glaring lights, to use your words -- should we not start off with the presumption that the essence of what she’s talking about is real? She says you sexually assaulted her."

BIDEN: "Look, from the beginning, I’ve said believing a woman means taking the woman’s claim seriously when she steps forward. And then vet it. Look into it. That’s true in this case as well. Women have a right to be heard, and the press should investigate claims they make. I will always uphold that principle.  But in the end, in every case, the truth is what matters. In this case, the truth is: The claims are false."

BRZEZINSKI: "Is it possible that the truth is contained in -- do you have any NDAs that have been signed by women employed by you?"

BIDEN: "There is no NDA signed. I’ve never asked anyone to sign an NDA. There are no NDAs, period, in my case. None."

BRZEZINSKI: "Your Senate documents at the University of Delaware were supposed to go public and then resealed. The access was changed. I know that you are saying any HR complaints would be in the National Archives. But why not reveal your Senate documents that are being held in Delaware? I know there’s 1,800-plus boxes. But if she believes and she alleges the complaints may be hidden there, why not strive for complete transparency? Why was the access to those documents sealed up when they were supposed to be revealed?"

BIDEN: "Well, they weren’t supposed to be revealed. I gave them to the university. The university said it was going to take time to go through all the boxes. And they said it wouldn’t be before 2020 that that occurred, or 2021 -- I can’t remember what year they said. But look, a record like this can only be at one place. It would be -- it would not be at the University of Delaware. My archives do not contain personnel files; my archives contain documents … They are public records. My speeches, my papers, my position papers. And if that document existed, it would be stored in the National Archives, where documents from the office she claimed to have filed a complaint with are stored. That’s where they are stored. The Senate controls those archives. I’m asking the secretary of the Senate today to identify whether any such document exists. If it does, make it public."

BRZEZINSKI: "Right, but there are claims and concerns and reports in Business Insider, and she claims that possibly a complaint or some sort of record of this might be at the University of Delaware. So for complete transparency, why not push for the release of any documents with Tara Reade’s name on them, whether it’s at the University of Delaware or the National Archives?"

BIDEN: First of all, let’s get this straight. There are no personnel documents. You can’t do that, you wouldn’t, for example, if you worked with mayor, I worked for you, and you had my income tax returns, you had my whatever, they’re private documents. They’re not for -- they don’t get put out in the public. They’re not part of the public record that in fact, that any senator or vice president or president has in their documents. Look, there was one place that she could file the complaint, and that office at the time was -- all those records from that office are in the Archives, and they’re controlled by the Senate. That’s where personnel documents would be if they exist. That’s where the complaint would be if it exists."

BRZEZINSKI: "Given the fact that you have said in the past that if a woman goes under the lights and talks about something like this, we have to consider that the essence of this is real, is the essence of what she is saying real? Why do you think she is doing this?"

BIDEN: "I’m not going to question her motive. I’m not going to get into that at all. I don’t know why she’s saying this. I don’t know why after 27 years all of a sudden this gets raised. I don’t understand it. But I’m not going to go in and question her motive. I’m not going to attack her. She has a right to say whatever she wants to say. But I have a right to say look at the facts, check it out, find out whether any of it — what she says is asserted or true. And based on the investigations that have taken place so far, to the best of my knowledge, by two major papers, they interviewed dozens of my staff members, not just senior staff but staff members, I’m told. At least that’s what they said, and nobody -- this was not the atmosphere in my office at all. No one has ever said anything like this."

BRZEZINSKI: "But Mr. Vice President, as it pertained to Dr. Ford, high-level Democrats said she should be believed; that they believed it happened. You said if someone like Dr. Ford would come out, the essence of what she is saying has to be believed and has to be real. Why? Why is it real for Dr. Ford but not for Tara Reade?"

BIDEN: "Look, because the facts are -- Look. I’m not suggesting she had no right to come forward. And I never -- I’m not saying any woman -- they should come forward, they should be heard, and then it should be investigated. It should be investigated. And if there is anything that is consistent with what is being said and she makes the case or the case is made, then it should be believed. But ultimately, the truth matters. The truth matters. Period. I fought my entire life to change the whole notion -- to change the law and the notion around sexual assault. I fought to strengthen and protect the process for survivors. We have come a long way, and have a long way to go until we are in the position of a fair and unbiased view, but at the end of the day, it has to be looked at. These claims are not true. They are not true. There’s no -- they’re -- they’re not true."

BRZEZINSKI: "Mr. Vice President -- "

BIDEN: "I don’t know what else I can say to you."

BRZEZINSKI: "Well, I’m going to try to ask many different ways. Stacey Abrams said during the Kavanaugh hearings, 'I believe women. I believe women. I believe survivors of assault should be supported, voices should be heard.' Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted, 'Do we believe women? Do we give them the opportunity to tell their story? We must be a country that says yes every time.' They now both support you. Nancy Pelosi falls into this category too, as well as many other leaders in the Democratic Party. Are women to be believed unless it pertains to you?"

BIDEN: "Look, women are to be believed, to be given the benefit of the doubt. If they come forward and say something that they said happened to them, they should start off with the presumption that they are telling the truth. Then you have to look at the circumstances and the facts. And the facts in this case do not exist. They never happened. And there are so many inconsistencies in what has been said in this case. So yes, look at the facts. And I assure you it did not happen, period, period."

BRZEZINSKI: "But why is it different now? Do you regret what you said during the Kavanaugh hearings?"

BIDEN: "What I said during the Kavanaugh hearings was that she had a right to be heard. And the fact that she came forward -- the presumption would be that she was telling the truth, unless it is proved she wasn’t telling the truth. Or not 'proved' … I’m sorry."

BRZEZINSKI: "Go ahead. As we await the records from the National Archives, are you absolutely certain, are you absolutely positive there is no record of any complaint by Tara Reade against you?"

BIDEN: "I am absolutely positive that no one I am aware of was ever made aware of any complaint, a formal complaint made by … Tara Reade against me at the time this allegedly happened 27 years ago or until I announced for president -- I guess it was in April or May of this year. I know of no one who is aware that any complaint was made."

BRZEZINSKI: "I’ve got two more questions. The first about the University of Delaware records. Do you agree with the reporting that those records were supposed to be opened to the public and then they were resealed for a longer period of time until after you leave “public life”? If you agree with that, if that’s what happened, why did that happen?"

BIDEN: "The fact is, there’s a lot of speeches I’ve made, positions I’ve taken, interviews that I did overseas with people -- all of those things related to my job. And the idea that they would all be made public … while I was running for public office, they could really be taken out of context. The papers are position papers. They are documents that existed that, for example, when I met with Putin or when I met with whomever. And all of that could be fodder in a campaign at this time, and I don’t know of anyone who has ever done anything like that. And the National Archives is the only place that would have anything to do with personnel records. There are no personnel records in the Biden papers at the university."

BRZEZINSKI: "Personnel records aside, are you certain there was nothing about Tara Reade in those records?"

BIDEN: "I am absolutely certain."

BRZEZINSKI: "If so, why not approve a search of her name in those records?"

BIDEN: "Approve a search of her name?"

BRZEZINSKI: "Yes, and reveal anything that might be related to Tara Reade in the University of Delaware records."

BIDEN: "There is nothing. They are not there. And I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. There are no personnel records by definition."

BRZEZINSKI: "The point I’m trying to make is that you are approving and calling for a search of the National Archive records -- "

BIDEN: "Yes."

BRZEZINSKI: "Of anything pertaining to Tara Reade. I’m asking why not do the same in the University of Delaware records, which have raised questions because they were supposed to be revealed to the public and then they were sealed for a longer period of time. Why not do it for both sets of records?"

BIDEN: "Because the material in the University of Delaware has no personnel files, but it does have a lot of confidential conversations I had with the president about a particular issue, that I had with heads of states of other places, that that would be something that would not be revealed while I was in public office, or while I was seeking public office. It just stands to reason. To the best of my knowledge, no one else has done that either."

BRZEZINSKI: "I’m just talking about her name, not anybody else in those records, a search for that. Nothing classified about the president or anybody else. I’m just asking why not do a search for Tara Reade’s name in the University of Delaware records?"

BIDEN: "I mean, look, who does that search?"

BRZEZINSKI: "The University of Delaware? Perhaps you set up a commission that can do it? I don’t know. Whatever is the fairest way to create the most transparency."

BIDEN: "Well, this is -- Look, Mika, she said she filed a report. She still has her employment records still. She said she refiled a report with the only office that would have a report in the United States Senate at the time. If the report was ever filed, it was filed there, period."

BRZEZINSKI: "If you could speak directly to Tara Reade about her claims or anything, what would you say?"

BIDEN: "I would -- this never, ever happened. I don’t know what is motivating her. I don’t know what is behind any of it, but it is irrelevant. It never happened. It never happened, period. I’m not going to start questioning her motive. I’m not going to get into that. I’m not going to start. I’m not going to go after Tara Reade for saying these things. It’s simple. What are the facts? Do any of the things she said, do they add up? It never happened."

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Biden said that Reade's harassment complaint documents, if they exist, would be in the National Archives. Business Insider reached out to National Archives and were informed that Senate records would not be stored with them.

Later today, Biden sent a new letter to Julie Adams, Secretary of the Senate. The letter from Biden, which he also made public, states that he was under the impression at the National Archives would have the records. He's since been informed that the Senate retains them after all. Biden asks that Adams locate Reade's complaint and any and all related documents and make them public.

In my view, Biden isn't trying to cover anything up and he isn't trying to hide anything. We've seen how actual abusers with platforms and resources like Biden's handle allegations. They threaten legal action. They try to buy their victims' silence. They smear their victims as unstable, delusional, deceitful and opportunistic. They call the victim ugly. They try to distract with alternate revelations. They try to claim that abuse is normal and refer to other celebrities doing the same.

But Biden's delayed response has revealed a desire to avoid traumatizing female abuse victims on a national stage even as he refutes an allegation of abuse. His refusals to speculate on Reade's reasons or motives are a refusal to smear a woman smearing him. His declaration that he will not retaliate against Reade in court or public opinion is comforting to women. His request for Reade's complaint to be located and publicized has been made openly. This is not the behaviour of an abuser.

I cannot stress enough in the name of Quinn's glasses, Wade's hockey tickets, Rembrandt's US dollars and the Professor's slide rule that the views of ireactions are not the views of the Sliders.TV community.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Tara Reade has changed her story again, claiming that the record of her sexual harassment complaint  she demanded that Biden release contains no complaint of sexual harassment. She also cancelled her Sunday interview on FOX. She did this on Friday, shortly after Biden wrote on Medium that he would ask the National Archives to release any documents pertaining to Reade and followed up with a letter asking the Secretary of Senate to do the same. https://apnews.com/aec7beb03e9e0e0e6e3c58111293e0ea

I've written before that Biden doesn't follow the pattern of silencing, distraction and intimidating that most abusers follow. There is another pattern in abusers where the perpetrator will tell the victim that if they perform a certain task, the abuse will cease; the abuser will then move the goalposts to declare that their target failed to meet the conditions to end their suffering. It is particularly common in those who engage in elder abuse with the view that the elderly with their long and faded memories can be easy targets.

Reade was the one who insisted on repeating her demand that Biden release documents that would validate the part of her story where she reported his harassment. Now that Biden has consented to release any such records, she's changing her story to say that those documents wouldn't support her story after all.

Then what was she hoping to accomplish in demanding these documents? Aside notoriety, attention and abusing her former employer?

Reade later claimed on Twitter that the Associated Press story is false, but when asked to elaborate -- was she misquoted? Were her quotes falsified? She didn't reply.

David Axelrod, Obama's former campaign manager, reported that he was part of reviewing Biden's history and documents when Obama was considering Biden for VP. Axelrod says there was no record of any complaint from Tara Reade and that in vetting VP candidates, complaints of this nature would have been located and flagged for follow-up interviews with anyone involved. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/opinions … =hvper.com

It is a terrible thing to say that a woman should not be believed when she says that she has been assaulted. It is horrific for female victims to see fellow survivors be disbelieved. But Reade is behaving like an abuser: moving the goalposts of her demands, using the supposed vagaries of an old man's memory to attack him where he seems defenceless -- and now that Biden has proven able to defend himself with gentleness and affirmation and accountability, Reade is abruptly reversing and retreating.

1,188 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-05-02 22:31:03)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate



This is just too head spinning to follow anymore.  So last year, Reade said she chickened out, and didn't follow through with the US Senate.  Her issue was inappropriateness, and being retaliated against.  She's also said she reported it to several in Biden's office, and now she didn't.  Reade also said that AP story is false, on her Twitter, but SHE SAID IT!!!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … allegation

This apparently I missed weeks ago, but Reade said that all she did was jot down the complaint on a CLIPBOARD.  There's no record of this anywhere, certainly not at the University of Delaware.

After the alleged assault, Reade said she filed a complaint on a clipboard in a Senate personnel office — she could not remember the name — about the alleged harassment, not the assault. She never heard back about it. No record of the report has been located.

The office that fielded harassment complaints at that time was called the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices. It was replaced in 1995 with the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. In 1993, the law said that harassment allegations would be heard by an independent board.

Reade suspects that Biden’s Senate office might have gotten alerted to a complaint and that it might be in Biden’s official Senate paper archive at the University of Delaware. Those records are sealed from the public “for two years after Biden retires from public life.”

Again, I do not feel that Ms. Reade's intent is malevolent here, but I just don't know what she WANTS out of this?  Biden is not going to budge, and all she has is her story, that she's told for many years.  With zero backup from anyone in the Biden office or the U.S. Senate, whether it happened or not, how can Joe Biden be found "guilty?"  She canceled the interview "over death threats."  Like plight said, something probably went on, and Tara complained and was retaliated against.  It's very difficult to try to make these accusations against a powerful person, and really, you have to have a concrete case.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Let's not forget that there's a chance that Reade has been coached or led to believe (in some way) that something happened.  It would explain why her story has changed.  It's certainly possible.

https://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/impla … n-mall.php

1,190 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-05-04 11:48:29)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think it's bizarre she doesn't have a laywer.  While Reade's initial story might be genuine, her motivation at this point is simply dishonest.  She keeps saying she wants nothing from Joe Biden; however, it's quite obvious, she wants him to quit.  She had numerous opportunities to fade away, yet she's only ramped up both the seriousness of her details and complaints about the lack of media coverage since Biden's string of primary victories.  On this she is 100% full of shit, complaining that her story became "partisan."  No DUH it did, you're dreaming about Putin, then tweeting support of Bernie Sanders, and when Biden pulls ahead, oh hey excuse me, by the way, he assaulted me!!!  Then you're shocked people dismiss you as wishing political revenge, or perhaps an agent of Russia?  Come on.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-say … -a-success

With a pandemic ongoing, and a President who this weekend admitted that 35,000 more people will die in the next month due to his push to reopen the economy, and we have to deal with Reade?  Again, I know what that sounds like, but quite frankly, one woman's "uncomfortableness" from 3 decades ago should not outweigh tens of thousands (and who knows how many more) deaths compounded by an idiot in charge.  It's too late to change nominees, granted they haven't nominated anyone to this point, but you know what I mean.  The fallout from that will be horrendous, the Democratic ticket will be a clown show, while Trump never plays by these rules.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I am growing more concerned about the direction we are taking in response to this virus.


This is a shade, a beginning, of the social credit scoring system used in China.  The China system builds an aggregate score based on everything - financial history, employment history, social media history, medical history, etc. For instance, if your body mass index is too high (you’re overweight), then you aren’t allowed to ride the subway so that you’re forced to walk more. You may even be restricted on where you can eat or what you can buy all under the thought of “this is what’s best for you.”  The problem is, who is deciding what’s best for *you*?  You should decide that - the decision should not be made for you by taking your choices away.

We’ve been inching towards this for years in the US (such as Mayor Bloomberg banning Big Gulps for our “own good”), but this virus may push it over the edge.



Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well the "Murray" model was totally re-adjusted, after seeing cell phone data of people being more mobile, since many states have relaxed.  However, the major hotspots are currently nursing homes, prisons, and meat processing plants.  There was no testing and little protection at these places, and we're just now seeing huge spreads in Iowa, Texas, NM, Nebraska, etc., etc.  They don't even know it's happening because they don't test.  One plant had 400 positive, no symptoms, showing how widespread it is.  We have placed zero public concern for conditions at those types of places before this pandemic, and now it's blown up in our faces.  Testing, contact tracing, and cleaning up those plants, nursing homes, and prisons is not happening.  New York and California are ahead the most on those, and they aren't ready.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Temporal Flux is right to be cautious. But I wonder how feasible a China style social credit system is for America, a country that can't even implement social distancing.

Also -- did the Trump administration accomplish something recently?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/0 … hip-236313

I pray that they have for my American brothers and sisters.

You know, the Donald Trump of the north, Doug Ford, has been far from perfect. But the public can see that he is fighting for their safety, for their resources, for their well-being. He failed to raise testing rates as quickly as possible, he has had disastrous results with long term care homes -- but everyone can see that he is putting in the hours, taking all the complaints, bearing all the blame. Everyone knows that none of his failures resulted from a lack of effort. Trying counts.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The problem is scale, what Kushner has done just isn't big enough.  Biden for instance keeps saying Manhattan Project, which most people were not alive to witness.  That was a full-scale wartime effort, which this Kushner program is not.  There's really no reason it shouldn't have been either, as we're pissing away billions a day in economic losses.

BTW, another Tara Reade tidbit, as I myself continue to have a tough time untwisted what she has said in the past.  Apparently when she "chickened out" of something, it was a Senate Counseling program, idk, just way too confusing.

The Associated Press asked Reade about the complaint after uncovering notes from an interview last year in which she said she “chickened out” of filing a report. “They have this counseling office or something, and I think I walked in there once, but then I chickened out,” she said, according to a transcript of the interview last year. At the time, Reade had accused Biden of touching her inappropriately but did not detail the sexual assault allegations until this year. Reade says that her “chickened out” comment referred to the way she did not fully detail the assault allegations in the report.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

The problem is scale, what Kushner has done just isn't big enough.  Biden for instance keeps saying Manhattan Project, which most people were not alive to witness.  That was a full-scale wartime effort, which this Kushner program is not.  There's really no reason it shouldn't have been either, as we're pissing away billions a day in economic losses.

Well, I wonder if Trump is actually trying to appeal to his base here.  Even though Trump himself has been emphatic about this virus, a good deal of his base still thinks that the virus is a hoax.  Or just like the flu (again, Trump has repeatedly said it isn't).

So I wonder if Trump has to downplay his response to it so that he doesn't lose the people who think it's a hoax?  As I've said before, Trump can't lose a single 2016 vote if he has any chance of winning.  He has to try to figure out a way to save the economy (his only accomplishment) while also doing something to fight the virus while also not doing too much to fight the virus. 

I think it's why Trump doesn't wear a mask.  It's also certainly narcissism, but Pence doesn't have that level of narcissism and didn't wear a mask.  I'm guessing he did it to appeal to the people who think it's no big deal.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well there's no question Trump will downplay this pandemic right through November.  The death toll will always be far better than expected because he "closed the border."  That's B.S., but that's his plan.  What he cannot lie about are economic numbers, which I think he's going to have a far tougher time "spinning."  As I've said, as long as the highest rates of infection and death continue to be with nursing homes, prisons, immigrant plant workers, and African-Americans, he will be happy.  Those are not his voters.  Now, he's an utter moron, and fails to comprehend that when those people are infected around the country, that his blue collar white voters will also be infected.  The virus is not racist.  Nor that those in rural areas have far worse access to healthcare and will pay dearly for that. 

Trump has made a political career out of smashing norms and taking risks.  Granted, the risks are calculated.  He has threatened Iran, who we all know are not going to get into a shooting war with the United States.  He fosters hatred and division, with little pushes here and there, because he knows what he can get away with.  He knew impeachment wouldn't stop him, because Mitch McConnell is a whore.  This virus doesn't answer to him or anybody else.  It's a completely random variable, and taking risks with it is absolutely insane.  Yet here we are.  Trump is gambling that the infections will subside with the warm weather, and stay away until at least after the election.  Either that and/or there will be working vaccines which he can boast about.  Again, this might work out, but it might also EFFFF all of us badly in the end.  Trump doesn't care, because it's about him winning, nothing else.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

But I realize that he gets tested all the time and would have great doctors to watch over him...but he could get it if he isn't taking the right precautions.  Boris Johnson is significantly younger and appears healthier (I've seen pictures of him on a bike and on a jog and that's more than I can say about Trump) and he ended up in the ICU.  He's in several of the high-risk categories (heart disease, age, potentially pre-diabetic). 

I'm not saying.  I'm just saying.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Ironically a military member who is at the White House tested positive, not sure how much time Trump spends with him.  My father greeted the news by saying that Trump probably already has a vaccine himself, ha ha ha.