Biden for President?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

She charged the two vet bill to the rescue in 2016.

Thanks for the correction. I was on my phone and didn't feel like going back through this thread to find the dates again.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Lessee...Trump is a well known liar. VERY well known. So if a woman....or 20...happen to tell us that he has groped them, forced them up against a wall and forcibly kissed them, assaulted them in a dressing room, etc., whom exactly do you think we should believe? The 20 women or a man who lies on an average of about 20 lies per day?

Get real.

This is the same vein of problem: “the accused lies a lot so he probably did those things he’s being accused of,” is a horrible argument.

Besides, we didn’t get an in-depth investigation of the “credibility” of all those accusers. I mean, what if a few of them have bounced checks or something sinister like that?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by xjx388

This is the same vein of problem: “the accused lies a lot so he probably did those things he’s being accused of,” is a horrible argument.

Good thing that's not the argument. The accused lies a lot so his story is probably not credible without evidence. But put that way it doesn't fit your agenda, so I can see why you went with your own version.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Key point from that CNN poll showing Biden potentially losing battleground states:

Quote:

Though other recent polling has shown some signs of concern for Biden among younger voters and strength among older ones, few have pegged the race as this close among younger voters. The results suggest that younger voters in the battleground states are tilted in favor of Trump, a stark change from the last CNN poll in which battleground voters were analyzed in March, even as other demographic groups shifted to a smaller degree.

Biden's poor performance among younger voters is a long identified problem. What is being done to address this? Is it effective?

Blaming the voters is a fools argument. It's the candidates job to convince enough voters to win. What is Biden going to do to appeal to younger voters?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Good thing that's not the argument. The accused lies a lot so his story is probably not credible without evidence. But put that way it doesn't fit your agenda, so I can see why you went with your own version.

His story (I didn’t do it)
is probably not credible (he probably did it)

Please explain how this is put any differently than I put it? Because it’s not.

My agenda is clear: you don’t examine the credibility of allegations or denials by looking at the character of a person, you look at the evidence. This is amply proven by the fact that the media did no investigation about the characters or backgrounds of the various Trump accusers, we have no evidence other than the allegations themselves and yet, Trump is painted as a sexual predator.

We’ve been told that we should look for a pattern of accusations. Kavanaugh didn’t have a pattern of accusations. Yet he is supposedly a sexual predator.

Many posters here are not applying their own professed criteria, that they clearly apply to people with an R after their name, to people with a D after their name. Biden in this case. Recall that many of the accusations against Trump are of the, “he hugged and kissed me without my consent,” variety. That’s really bad, apparently. But Biden’s penchant for burying his head in women’s hair and kissing their heads without their consent (and other similar behavior) is no biggie, apparently.

It appears that the line between sexual predator and mildly creepy all comes down to the biases of the person evaluating the situation.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Please don't change my handle without my permission!"

- Butthurt McGee, probably

Me? I don't mind. I'm just glad somebody noticed.

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

- The artist formerly known as Dr. Teeth, probably.

[Puppycow]

1) State governments. 2020 is a census year, which makes it a year for redistricting, and potentially, Gerrymandering. This is a big one. I'm not in favor of Gerrymandering, but I'm pretty sure that Republicans will do it in states where they control the process. That will give them a built in advantage in elections for the next decade.

2) The courts. Not only the Supreme Court, although obviously that especially. Hopefully Ruth can make it until January of next year, but I wouldn't count on her making it to January 2025.

3) Four more years of you-know-who. (OK, that's the obvious one)

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by xjx388

His story (I didn’t do it)
is probably not credible (he probably did it)

Please explain how this is put any differently than I put it? Because it’s not.

But it is. His story (I didn't do it, but I bragged about doing it on tape)
is probably not credible. When he's given conflicting stories, it's pretty hard to believe both of them. And when his story isn't credible, it doesn't automatically make all of the other stories completely true. This is such poor, black and white thinking that I don't think you apply it to any other time you are dealing with people.

Originally Posted by xjx388

My agenda is clear: you don’t examine the credibility of allegations or denials by looking at the character of a person, you look at the evidence. This is amply proven by the fact that the media did no investigation about the characters or backgrounds of the various Trump accusers, we have no evidence other than the allegations themselves and yet, Trump is painted as a sexual predator.

If you think that there was no research done into the backgrounds of the Trump accusers, you're as ignorant of that as those that think there was no research done into Kavanaugh's accusers.

Originally Posted by xjx388

We’ve been told that we should look for a pattern of accusations. Kavanaugh didn’t have a pattern of accusations. Yet he is supposedly a sexual predator.

Nonsense! Four accusers came forward. In the background research that you think wasn't done, one admitted she fabricated the accusation. Please review the basic facts next time.

Originally Posted by xjx388

Many posters here are not applying their own professed criteria, that they clearly apply to people with an R after their name, to people with a D after their name. Biden in this case. Recall that many of the accusations against Trump are of the, “he hugged and kissed me without my consent,” variety. That’s really bad, apparently. But Biden’s penchant for burying his head in women’s hair and kissing their heads without their consent (and other similar behavior) is no biggie, apparently.

It appears that the line between sexual predator and mildly creepy all comes down to the biases of the person evaluating the situation.

No, you are as ignorant of the accusations against Trump as you were of those against Kavanaugh.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

This is reactionary thinking in action.

Right here.

I can have my own independent thoughts. I'm sorry for whatever limitations prevent you from doing so.

Of course you can have your own independent thoughts. I never said that you couldn’t.

But you asked my opinion and I gave it.

I’m sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way, but just like you’re allowed to think what you want, so am I.

[SuburbanTurkey]

'I wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade': Biden says about sexual harassment allegations

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...-read-n1207516

This is the third time Biden has told voters concerned about issues not to vote for him.

- Told a climate activist not to vote for him in Iowa

- Told immigration activist who questioned him to vote for Trump

A bold strategy, let's see if it pays off.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Of course you can have your own independent thoughts. I never said that you couldn’t.

But you asked my opinion and I gave it.

I’m sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way, but just like you’re allowed to think what you want, so am I.

The claim that following Trump supporters demonstrates independent thought is pretty good, though.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

And this is the low evidence threshold that is sufficient for some to change their vote.

Nice way to cherry pick over the important part of my post. Good day, you are dismissed for being dishonest.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by wareyin

The claim that following Trump supporters demonstrates independent thought is pretty good, though.

Having the same concern as a Trump supporter =/= "following Trump supporters"

But just go on and embrace both the genetic fallacy and poisoning the well at the same time.

End result: you don't have to acknowledge anything you don't like.

ETA: there may be a misattribution of my concern with that quote. I'm not jumping on the dementia bandwagon. It reinforces my concern about his having priorities that greatly diverge from mine. What an awful line to flub. It makes him look like he cares more about jobs than lives cut short.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by wareyin

But it is. His story (I didn't do it, but I bragged about doing it on tape)
is probably not credible. When he's given conflicting stories, it's pretty hard to believe both of them. And when his story isn't credible, it doesn't automatically make all of the other stories completely true. This is such poor, black and white thinking that I don't think you apply it to any other time you are dealing with people.

Look . . . I'm not interested in another extended back and forth exchange. But I did find this article that says a lot of what I think:

Quote:

... In situations such as these, questions about a man’s behavior suddenly become a referendum on women’s characters, and it is women’s reputations, not that of the man in question, that somehow always wind up suffering.

Rank-and-file Biden supporters, along with the liberal and anti-Trump commentariat, have been much more aggressive in their attacks on Reade. They have smeared her as a quack or a plant; to discredit her, they have pointed to her support for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and a weird, since-deleted Medium essay she wrote praising Vladimir Putin, although feminists have spent much of the past three years explaining that such non sequiturs do not diminish a woman’s testimony. Darkly, Reade has also been cast as suspicious because for a time she lived under another name—a step she took in response to a domestic-abuse situation. Reade has received death threats, in addition to the usual slew of disbelieving and cruel missives. Even journalists covering her story have come under fire. New York magazine’s Rebecca Traister received threatening texts after publishing a piece on Reade. When the MSNBC host Chris Hayes devoted a segment on his show to the allegations, activists on Twitter called for him to be fired.

This kind of vitriol is supposedly justified by the moral imperative of denying Donald Trump a second term. But the argument that Reade’s allegations must be refuted lest the country reelect Trump is undermined by Trump’s presidency in the first place: If an allegation of sexual assault by the candidate were enough to fatally harm a campaign, Trump would never have become president at all. Meanwhile, survivors are seeing members of the political party that is more amenable to women’s rights disbelieve a story of assault, and smear the accuser—as if #MeToo had never happened.

Emphasis mine.

If you disagree with that, fine. I will just continue to watch the situation with bemused interest at the foibles of human nature.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by xjx388

This is the same vein of problem: “the accused lies a lot so he probably did those things he’s being accused of,” is a horrible argument.

Besides, we didn’t get an in-depth investigation of the “credibility” of all those accusers. I mean, what if a few of them have bounced checks or something sinister like that?

Are you arguing Trump's accusers aren't credible?

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

'I wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade': Biden says about sexual harassment allegations

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...-read-n1207516

This is the third time Biden has told voters concerned about issues not to vote for him.

- Told a climate activist not to vote for him in Iowa

- Told immigration activist who questioned him to vote for Trump

A bold strategy, let's see if it pays off.

In this case it seems to me an appropriate response and (not ironically) a bold choice that could pay off . There is no way for him to publicly contest this beyond a denial without implicitly attacking Reade in some way and that ends up being quite hypocritical. Essentially saying "make up your own mind" keeps him out of the mud, and he did so without minimizing her allegations by agreeing that it could be disqualifying.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

In this case it seems to me an appropriate response and (not ironically) a bold choice that could pay off . There is no way for him to publicly contest this beyond a denial without implicitly attacking Reade in some way and that ends up being quite hypocritical. Essentially saying "make up your own mind" keeps him out of the mud, and he did so without minimizing her allegations by agreeing that it could be disqualifying.

Agreed. And building off of xjx388's post, there is no profit in attacking Reade's credibility. None.

Most voters will dismiss the claims if he denies them. What choice do we have? But if he drags this woman the way his supporters here seem excited to do, he will lose voters. Probably not me, the courts are just too important, but he will turn off some voters. It is unnecessary and unseemly to drag this woman through the mud. Even if you think she is a pig.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Agreed. And building off of xjx388's post, there is no profit in attacking Reade's credibility. None.

Most voters will dismiss the claims if he denies them. What choice do we have? But if he drags this woman the way his supporters here seem excited to do, he will lose voters. Probably not me, the courts are just too important, but he will turn off some voters. It is unnecessary and unseemly to drag this woman through the mud. Even if you think she is a pig.

If you don't challenge a lie then some people will believe you're admitting it's true. Why should anyone let someone besmirch their good name with slander and libel, publicly accuse them of terrible things, and mount no defense at all? I wouldn't expect anybody to tolerate that treatment, even people who aren't politicians.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Agreed. And building off of xjx388's post, there is no profit in attacking Reade's credibility. None.

...

I think this is an issue of selectivity, there's a threshold for what is relevant.

The accusation was not made in a vacuum. You seem to be saying one shouldn't look at anything about Reade. I'm saying we should be discriminatory and not go in for the throwing in anything to see if it sticks approach.

There is an middle ground here.

It's relative if it is specifically related to her accusation, such as her changing accounts of why she left her job in Biden's office.

The Vox reporters account is relative because it shows Reade escalating the story and escalating her search for news media attention.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If you don't challenge a lie then some people will believe you're admitting it's true. Why should anyone let someone besmirch their good name with slander and libel, publicly accuse them of terrible things, and mount no defense at all? I wouldn't expect anybody to tolerate that treatment, even people who aren't politicians.

I'm saying it is politically dangerous to dig the woman. Challenge the accusation, sure. He has. He said it didn't happen. So far I think he is handling this well.

His supporters are not handling it as well.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Agreed. And building off of xjx388's post, there is no profit in attacking Reade's credibility. None.

Most voters will dismiss the claims if he denies them. What choice do we have? But if he drags this woman the way his supporters here seem excited to do, he will lose voters. Probably not me, the courts are just too important, but he will turn off some voters. It is unnecessary and unseemly to drag this woman through the mud. Even if you think she is a pig.

His followers are doing a lot of damage.

He's a creep who shouldn't have run. He obviously has problems with women and probably did cross some lines at some point.

That said, I think erstwhile liberals running around using the standard denial tactics on Reade will cause a lot of damage going forward.

The whole point of the "believe the victim" is that outside of a criminal context (which has its own burdens) we give way too much weight to the interest of men accused of sexual misconduct, as if being wrongly accused is a far bigger injury than being assaulted and not being believed. It doesn't mean to uncritically accept every allegation, rather to address this cultural imbalance.

Which is easy to say until your own interests are endangered by an allegation, and then very hard to not draw on the idea that a wrongful accusation is so horrible that it justifies scrutinizing the living crap out of the accuser while demanding very clear evidence. Which is what we are seeing a lot of Biden supporters do, and it is going to be thrown back in our faces for the foreseeable future.

I mean, one can believe Reade, but not to the point where it justifies not voting for Biden. This doesn't have to be a binary choice. Life is full of ambiguity and rough compromises and this isn't a criminal court of law.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I think this is an issue of selectivity, there's a threshold for what is relevant.

The accusation was not made in a vacuum. You seem to be saying one shouldn't look at anything about Reade. I'm saying we should be discriminatory and not go in for the throwing in anything to see if it sticks approach.

There is an middle ground here.

It's relative if it is specifically related to her accusation, such as her changing accounts of why she left her job in Biden's office.

The Vox reporters account is relative because it shows Reade escalating the story and escalating her search for news media attention.

I think my reply to TM addresses your post as well, but if not please ask. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your post.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

His followers are doing a lot of damage.

He's a creep who shouldn't have run. He obviously has problems with women and probably did cross some lines at some point.

That said, I think erstwhile liberals running around using the standard denial tactics on Reade will cause a lot of damage going forward.

The whole point of the "believe the victim" is that outside of a criminal context (which has its own burdens) we give way too much weight to the interest of men accused of sexual misconduct, as if being wrongly accused is a far bigger injury than being assaulted and not being believed. It doesn't mean to uncritically accept every allegation, rather to address this cultural imbalance.

Which is easy to say until your own interests are endangered by an allegation, and then very hard to not draw on the idea that a wrongful accusation is so horrible that it justifies scrutinizing the living crap out of the accuser while demanding very clear evidence. Which is what we are seeing a lot of Biden supporters do, and it is going to be thrown back in our faces for the foreseeable future.

I mean, one can believe Reade, but not to the point where it justifies not voting for Biden. This doesn't have to be a binary choice. Life is full of ambiguity and rough compromises and this isn't a criminal court of law.

Agreed.

I would only add to your last paragraph: One can believe that Reade is trying to be honest without believing that Biden is being dishonest.

I know it is nice to think that either his hand was there or it wasn't, but thirty years in the future we aren't talking about facts anymore, we are talking about memories. some more factual than others, some more malleable than others. Some reinforced by corroborating evidence, some distorted through repeated retelling of stories.

This goes back to what I tried to say early on: what matters now is not what he did 30 years ago, but how he reacts to the accusation. So far, he has been handling that much better than Justice Kavenaugh did. Go team Mr. Electable!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The Vox reporters account is relative because it shows Reade escalating the story and escalating her search for news media attention.

I'm not sure that escalating the claim signifies that the claim is false. It seems that a common reaction for victims of abuse is to downplay the severity of the abuse, at least at first. People don't always act optimally, especially regarding stressful, painful, or humiliating experiences and memories. A rape victim who initially tries to thread the needle between getting help and minimizing the need for help, and then later decides they need to be more open about how bad it really was, seems entirely plausible to me.

Likewise seeking more media attention. There was no #metoo in the 90s. Or in the 2000s. There was no Social Media brigade ready to take up arms in your cause if you went public. Seeking media attention for rape accusations against a US Senator was a lot more of a crapshoot back then.

It's only very recently that our society has started sending strong signals that going public, and going big, are good strategies for getting justice for sexual abuse. (Of course this can backfire. Our society is also sending strong signals that going public is still a good way to get wrecked, not a good way to be made whole again.)

So, again, a rape victim who initially tries to get help without going public, and later decides they need to go public to get help, also seems entirely plausible to me.

The argument, "there's very little evidence, and what little there is happens to be circumstantial and inconclusive, so maybe it didn't happen" is a good argument in my opinion.

The argument, "she initially described a more minor offense, and didn't go to the press right away, so maybe it didn't happen" seems more like victim-blaming to me, than like a good argument.

---

I think the main problem is twofold:

One, rape accusations by their nature are very hard to prove to anyone's satisfaction. The act doesn't always produce a lot of physical evidence or eyewitnesses, and victims are understandably reticent about coming forward promptly with a strong case.

Two, as a society we're trying to have it both ways: We want to believe rape accusations even without good evidence, because we recognize that there are real victims out there, who shouldn't be dismissed just because the nature of the crime means they can't possibly prove their victimhood to the legal standard. But we also want to protect people from false accusations. So on the one hand, we have "believe all women". On the other, we have "innocent until proven guilty".

And we're telling rape victims to come out under the banner of "Believe All Women", and press for justice on that basis. But we don't actually guarantee that any such victim will be welcomed or supported under that banner. Instead you end up with all kinds of weirdness and inconsistency around "I believe all women, but this case is different because reasons."

A related problem is that it's much easier to gain attention through notoriety these days. There are Social Media brigades that will amplify your message to a degree that was impossible twenty years ago. There's a media class that's more than willing to run with any controversial claim, if it drives eyeballs and sells ads.

So if you're a bored fantasist with a bone to pick, it's pretty easy to get national attention by claiming your former boss groped you. Will some people assume it's true? Yes. Will some people assume it's false? Yes. Will some of the same people assume it's true because society needs to treat rape victims better, and also assume it's false because their guy shouldn't be condemned over unproven allegations? Sadly, yes.

[Trebuchet]

He's not going to pardon Trump. Whew, that's a relief!

[theprestige]

Then there's the utter hypocrisy of the Democrat political establishment, when comparing Biden to Franken.

Franken was accused. The accusations were not substantiated. Franken said he would submit to a Senate ethics investigation. Then Senator Gillibrand and others told him that wasn't acceptable, and that he needed to resign immediately. Which he did.

I don't know what Gillibrand thought she was up to. But it seems to me that if she's being honest with herself, her constituents, Al Franken, Joe Biden, and the American public, she and the rest of the Franken Railroad Gang need to come out with a formal statement calling for the recusal of Joe Biden from the Democratic presidential nomination process.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you arguing Trump's accusers aren't credible?

How are you confused?

No. I am arguing that "credibility," isn't something we should be concerned with when it comes to women who accuse men of sexual assault and harassment.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Then there's the utter hypocrisy of the Democrat political establishment, when comparing Biden to Franken.

Franken was accused. The accusations were not substantiated. Franken said he would submit to a Senate ethics investigation. Then Senator Gillibrand and others told him that wasn't acceptable, and that he needed to resign immediately. Which he did.

I don't know what Gillibrand thought she was up to. But it seems to me that if she's being honest with herself, her constituents, Al Franken, Joe Biden, and the American public, she and the rest of the Franken Railroad Gang need to come out with a formal statement calling for the recusal of Joe Biden from the Democratic presidential nomination process.

It's good that Republicans don't hold their president to the same high standards, isn't it?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Then there's the utter hypocrisy of the Democrat political establishment, when comparing Biden to Franken.

Franken was accused. The accusations were not substantiated. Franken said he would submit to a Senate ethics investigation. Then Senator Gillibrand and others told him that wasn't acceptable, and that he needed to resign immediately. Which he did.

I don't know what Gillibrand thought she was up to. But it seems to me that if she's being honest with herself, her constituents, Al Franken, Joe Biden, and the American public, she and the rest of the Franken Railroad Gang need to come out with a formal statement calling for the recusal of Joe Biden from the Democratic presidential nomination process.

There were photographs of Franken doing things that he later found embarrassing. I think he was wrong to resign, but it is not the same as an unfounded accusation since there were actual photographs that corroborated the story.

If there were a photo of Biden with his hand up this woman's skirt then there would be some equivalence. But I don't see it.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

In this case it seems to me an appropriate response and (not ironically) a bold choice that could pay off . There is no way for him to publicly contest this beyond a denial without implicitly attacking Reade in some way and that ends up being quite hypocritical. Essentially saying "make up your own mind" keeps him out of the mud, and he did so without minimizing her allegations by agreeing that it could be disqualifying.

To be honest, Biden's response so far has been pretty even handed. He's not showing the rush to call Reade a lying fraudster that are seen here and in other parts of the public discourse. He denies the accusation and won't speculate on her motives or directly attack her character. Seems like a good response if outright disproving her is not an option.

The other two examples of telling people with legitimate concerns about immigration and climate change, ostensibly issues important with lots of Democrats, was very poor. Telling an immigration activist to vote Trump is abhorrent behavior.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

It's good that Republicans don't hold their president to the same high standards, isn't it?

I don't think railroading Franken out of office set such a good standard in the first place. But it's the standard Gillibrand set. Why *not* hold her to it?

[Stacyhs]

Biden accidentally substitutes 'jobs' for 'deaths' in a sentence but quickly corrects himself and it's an example of his failing mind.

Quote:

“This is not a moment for excuses or deflections or blame game. We’re — we’re in the middle of a pandemic that has cost us more than 85,000 jobs as of today.
Lives of millions of people. Millions of people. Millions of jobs.

But this recent Trump statement is not a simple and common case of using the wrong word. It's an example of Trump's idiocy:

Quote:

When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases. They don’t want to write that. It’s just common sense

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

There were photographs of Franken doing things that he later found embarrassing. I think he was wrong to resign, but it is not the same as an unfounded accusation since there were actual photographs that corroborated the story.

If there were a photo of Biden with his hand up this woman's skirt then there would be some equivalence. But I don't see it.

My understanding is that there were additional allegations, and that it was the totality of the allegations that Franken was willing to submit to Ethics Committee review.

I think if there were a photo of Biden with his hand up a staffer's skirt, it would be far more damning than the Franken photo.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

To be honest, Biden's response so far has been pretty even handed. He's not showing the rush to call Reade a lying fraudster that are seen here and in other parts of the public discourse. He denies the accusation and won't speculate on her motives or directly attack her character. Seems like a good response if outright disproving her is not an option.

Counterpoint: Nowadays any even slightly-popular politician can be confident that there's a social media brigade ready and waiting to do all the dirty work he could possibly hope for. It costs Biden nothing to take the high road, when there's a whole Twitter army enthusiastically taking the low road on his behalf. He has the luxury of being able to easily crowdsource the kind of smear campaign that Nixon would have had to assign to the FBI.

Quote:

The other two examples of telling people with legitimate concerns about immigration and climate change, ostensibly issues important with lots of Democrats, was very poor. Telling an immigration activist to vote Trump is abhorrent behavior.

The fact that he used the same crappy deflection tactic in all three examples suggests that he's got the same crappy position in all three cases.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Biden accidentally substitutes 'jobs' for 'deaths' in a sentence but quickly corrects himself and it's an example of his failing mind.

Yeah, that one just seems stupid to me. I see it as a perfectly normal occurrence in public speaking.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Nice way to cherry pick over the important part of my post. Good day, you are dismissed for being dishonest.

The dull and pointless part. The part I would have spend time looking for and examining evidence for your bald assertion and still won’t know. Get over yourself.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Biden accidentally substitutes 'jobs' for 'deaths' in a sentence but quickly corrects himself and it's an example of his failing mind.



But this recent Trump statement is not a simple and common case of using the wrong word. It's an example of Trump's idiocy:

But we’ve been told in other contexts that such word substitution is a sign of mental decline/mental illness and disqualifying.

I agree that it’s a common occurrence in public speaking and no big deal. But that’s an across the board thing for me, not a “in this one case it’s no big deal; in this other case it’s a huge problem,” thing.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Yeah, that one just seems stupid to me. I see it as a perfectly normal occurrence in public speaking.

Agreed. Everyone does it...some more than others. My husband is a very intelligent man but he has a life long history of substituting the wrong word. For example, he'll say "Is the dryer clean?" when he actually meant to say "dishwasher" or "Put the ice cream in the refrigerator" when he obviously meant "freezer". It's become a long standing joke in the family.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

There were photographs of Franken doing things that he later found embarrassing. I think he was wrong to resign, but it is not the same as an unfounded accusation since there were actual photographs that corroborated the story.

If there were a photo of Biden with his hand up this woman's skirt then there would be some equivalence. But I don't see it.

There are photos and videos of him treating women in a pretty creepy way, though. Even young girls.

Originally Posted by Vox "Explainer"

Biden has also been criticized for being too handsy with children. Once at a swearing-in ceremony for Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from his home state of Delaware, Biden held the upper arm of the senator’s preteen daughter, leaned down, and whispered into her ear, as she became visibly uncomfortable. Then he kissed the side of her forehead, a gesture that made the girl flinch.

Women have said it makes them uncomfortable. Lucy Flores, from the same Vox article: "The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it." He's a man in power who make women and girls uncomfortable with his behavior.

So fine, we can let the sexual assault allegation go because there is no evidence, but we are eliding the evidence we do have: He seems to 1)have some weird hair fetish 2)have a problem being too handsy and invasive of personal space -and he has so little control over it that he has been caught, nose-in-hair, touching women and girls, on camera, multiple times along with other allegations from women about kissing the back of their head and other weird stuff like that.

I wonder why those things are dismissible. I also wonder why those things are not viewed as evidence that he might indeed have been capable of comitting the kind of assault that Reade accuses him of.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Agreed. Everyone does it...some more than others. My husband is a very intelligent man but he has a life long history of substituting the wrong word. For example, he'll say "Is the dryer clean?" when he actually meant to say "dishwasher" or "Put the ice cream in the refrigerator" when he obviously meant "freezer". It's become a long standing joke in the family.

Exactly.