They suck. Just the worst. 
Round #3,794 of Well I Obviously Never Said [Thing He Repeatedly Said While Calling Everyone Dumb For Not Agreeing]. This will not improve.
3 Likes
Just fucking lol. I made a post not 5 min before you expressly saying I DID SAY IT and then clarifying. Otherwise solid point.
I don’t think anyone in this thread hates poor people. I don’t think that the vast majority of the people who dismiss Reade have any real animus against poor people, in the way you guys are implying with the jokes. But I think that a lot of people, including an overwhelming majority of “moderates” on either side of the aisle, will assign more credibility to someone with a doctorate who works in academia than to someone who has trouble holding down a job. If you polled registered Dems, I’d wager over half of them would openly agree with the premise.
1 Like
Oh, well then. Do excuse.
1 Like
Other than Donald Trump, there is no one in politics that has consistently touched women in a creepy fashion more often than Joseph Biden. So don’t give me this bullshit about how it’s about scoring points against the liberals. Biden literally has clip reel montages of touching women inappropriately.
There are mounds of evidence that suggest that Joe Biden can’t keep his hands to himself. People like Clovis who try to make it political and about their personal grudges are really disgusting individuals.
2 Likes
This isn’t unique to liberals. We live in a society predicated on the idea of meritocracy that massively underestimates the role of luck in life. Your poll of any political group in North America would find a scary level of support for this idea. People think everything they have is earned through hard work.
Look Jack, a lot of these old dames, they want you to hug. They see Joe Biden, they want to shake his hand. Sometimes you catch a whiff of their conditioner. IT HAPPENS.
2 Likes
Me too is partly about powerful men who escape justice. The accusations being put in the public square, by women, is a way for those women to get some form of justice even if it’s not in the courts.
Or some don’t want the volume down. The whole point of going public is to turn it up.
There are certainly examples like that. I suspect most women though would prefer that there was a process they could get justice that didn’t involve being part of a media circus.
There is not though for the most part.
Powerful men buy and use their power to keep justice away and the volume of the media circus down. The entire reason many go public is to bypass that power and turn it up. They know what will come of it both good and bad so you play into the problem in asking for it to be turned down.
I mean there is a media circus because they came forward and brought it to the media since they believed they could not get justice any other way. Saying to turn it down fights directly against what they are trying to do.
I agree this is a danger. There is a small subset of cases that your objection would apply to. If the woman is activity trying to raise the volume then so be it.
I still question the “teams sport” aspect and suggest the vast majority of cases, even those that end up in the public, the victim would prefer it to be less public.
Ask yourself this. In these public cases with powerful men. Who is doing their best to keep it out of the media spotlight and who is doing their best to put the information in it.
It takes a lot of guts for these women to come forward knowing the negatives which will come and they do so for that spotlight and some form of justice.
Again I don’t disagree with anything you are saying.
You say it’s a small subset. But I don’t think that is right. In every case I can think of where its in the media spotlight it was brought there by women and the accused men fought to keep it out of that spotlight.
Like I said you saying it’s better to keep the volume down is not what they would want.
That’s because the bar is really high on those cases, FYI.
Right, so if the prosecutor doesn’t think he can make the case that she perjured herself, it seems reasonable to not describe what she did as perjury.
1 Like
No, I don’t believe that is what is going on here. The prosecutor can prove she perjured herself, but in the criminal context (I believe) they have to basically prove that but for her lies the verdict would have gone the other way. It’s an insanely high bar.
I dunno, man? Why’d you put it on your list in the first place? As far as details, if the details don’t matter, then why put the speculative details about how wealthy she was and her motivations? And it’s not a matter of going into more detail, it’s that you clearly mischaracterized the nature of her lying to downplay the seriousness of it, which might be why Trolly missed it in your list.
I hadn’t remembered the LaCasse detail but what I remembered came from this Vox article from Laura McGann about why they hadn’t run with the story.
This was the story Reade told in April 2019:
Reade told me that a senior aide told her Biden liked her legs and that he wanted her to serve cocktails at a fundraiser for him, a request she found demeaning and declined. When she later complained to others in the office that Biden would put his hands on her shoulder, neck, and hair during meetings in ways that made her uncomfortable, she says she was blamed and told to dress more conservatively. Within a few months, she said, her responsibilities had been stripped and she felt she was being pushed out of the job. She went back home to California deflated.
Reade told me that she wanted me to think of this story as being about abuse of power, “but not sexual misconduct.” Her emphasis was on how she was treated in Biden’s office by Senate aides, who she said retaliated against her for complaining about how Biden touched her in meetings. “I don’t know if [Biden] knew why I left,” she said. “He barely knew us by name.”
A friend who counselled Reade through this period corroborated this account, also saying the story was not about sexual assault:
Last year, Reade encouraged me to speak with a friend of hers who counseled her through her time in Biden’s office in 1992 and 1993. The friend was clear about what had happened, and what hadn’t.
“On the scale of other things we heard, and I feel ashamed, but it wasn’t that bad. [Biden] never tried to kiss her directly. He never went for one of those touches. It was one of those, ‘sorry you took it that way.’ I know that is very hard to explain,” the friend told me. She went on: “What was creepy was that it was always in front of people.”
Then in March 2020, Reade changed her story and said that it was, after all, a story about sexual assault. She then produced new friends - ones she had not produced in support of the original story - to support this new story. LaCasse is someone she spoke to two years after the alleged incident. The friend that McGann had spoken to in 2019 also changed her story to support Reade’s new story. On the Katie Halper show Reade blamed the media:
Well, I was going to tell the whole thing … the whole history with Biden. … But the way I was being questioned, it made me so uncomfortable that I didn’t trust it. And no offense to the reporters out there, it’s just maybe that’s something that can be learned, how to talk to somebody who got. … Because I just really got shut down. … And the narrative [they] really wanted it to be was that it wasn’t a sexual thing. Like don’t say it’s sexual. And so I was like, okay, I guess I can’t really say the whole story. …
This is a total fabrication. Reade was very clear in 2019 with both McGann and The Union, who published the original story, that this wasn’t a sexual assault allegation. McGann says both she and other reporters Reade spoke to were completely open to a sexual assault story. This was the height of MeToo; a reporter publishing that kind of story about a major political figure could be up for a Pulitzer. It makes no sense to suggest the media aren’t interested in those sort of stories.
So to recap, Reade told an original story about Biden in 2019 that was extremely plausible, in which both her and her friend emphasised that sexual assault had not occurred. A year later, she’s telling an entirely new story, producing entirely new friends to support it. When asked why she didn’t tell this story in the first place, her answer is a self-serving fabrication, offloading blame onto the media. There are huge issues here before we even get to her lying about her qualifications in court.
“Believe women” means “give women the benefit of the doubt” not “totally ignore any and all glaring credibility problems”.
2 Likes