Biden for President?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Bob001

By your standard, if there is no supporting evidence -- and what would you need? witnesses? video? -- then the woman's complaint would have to be rejected out of hand.

Not necessarily. We will almost never have direct evidence as you describe; but, we can often have corroborating/circumstantial evidence. With Reade (and Ford) we can't even have much of that. They told people contemporaneously, that's not nothing, but it's also not much. It happened decades ago. Given the lack of evidence and the remoteness of the alleged incident, it's the kind of accusation that each person either has to decide to give some weight to, or they don't. I don't blame people if they reject it out of hand. I don't fault people for thinking, given Biden's creepy behaviour with women, "yeah, that could have happened."

What I have a problem with is dismissing the claim because you found out that the accuser has some issues with her "credibility." I mean, it's like you didn't even read the part you snipped out. Do you not see the problems with such an approach?

Quote:

Alternatively, you could look at whether she has a history of telling the truth -- or not -- about important matters. One thing we know about people is that they generally do what has worked for them in the past. If someone has an extensive, proven pattern of lying and fraud, that makes it harder to take her word alone about an explosive allegation for which there is no evidence.

"Word alone" is never enough to take an allegation too seriously. "Bob embezzles from his company!" is an allegation for which there is no evidence for. It's just an allegation. Why should anyone give it much weight at all? Let's say the person making the allegation has an impeccable reputation -no black marks, no history of lies, manipulation or theft. Does this make the allegation more likely to be true? Even if no evidence can be found? I don't think it does. There is either evidence or there isn't.

If a prostitute alleges rape, does her illegal activity make her accusation less likely to be true? No it does not.

It's a fault in human nature that women who have "shady" pasts are less likely to believed. Why advocate a strategy that perpetuates this injustice?

[The Great Zaganza]

I see a range of things that might have happened between Reade and Biden:

at the extreme, Biden did something horrible a long time ago and, as far as we know (and by now we would most likely know) never did anything similar ever again.
In that scenario, the Biden we vote on in November is not the Biden who assaulted Reade.

at the other extreme, Reade has a, possibly legitimate, grievance against Biden's office from the time she worked there, possibly involving inappropriate physical contact or speech, but falling far short of coercion or assault. And since then, Reade has escalated the accusations in the hopes of profiting from doing so.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I notice XJ is laser focused on this one person's claim and ignores the 2 dozen women who accuse Trump of sexual assault. Now I am not aguing Trump did those things but here we are considering Trump or Biden and XJ has hand waved Trump's issues and can only talk about a claim against Biden that cannot be confirmed in the slightest way.

Makes you go hmmmmm.

Don't break your head with all that thinking; this is a thread about Biden.

[Travis]

Well those two investigative pieces put this to bed. Reade has lived a life as a grifter. She plays on people's sympathies and coasts along from grift to grift.

And when you combine that with the new evidence that Biden did not have staffers work fundraisers, let alone pick out women with "nice legs", and the fact that the only hallway where the supposed assault could have happened is just not a place it could have physically taken place I think we can declare this a non story.

A life long con artist found some Bernie Bros that were willing to push a dubious story because they were determined to subvert the will of voters and have Fingerwag White Flight installed as the nominee even though people had coalesced against him and people allowed their prejudices to keep this going long past when it should have.

[Travis]

This bit is absolutely damning in the PBS investigation. Women who worked as staffers in the Senate kept a list of senators to avoid in an attempt to keep new staffers safe. Biden was not someone anyone worried about.

At the time, a climate of harassment and sexual entitlement existed in some offices in the Senate, driven by some male senators whose behavior was well known on Capitol Hill.

“We all worked in a culture where men put their hands on you, often,” said Mary Byrne, who worked in the Senate from 1988 to 1995. “I remember sitting at a desk outside the Agriculture Committee and one staffer would come in and give you a shoulder massage, say you are doing good,” Byrne said. “Men there felt they had access to your body as a young woman.”
Byrne also said she remembers walking in on a female deputy chief of staff sitting on a senator’s lap. Another person who worked in the Senate at the time told the NewsHour he recalled seeing a senator with his arm around the waist of a young female staffer on an elevator.

Byrne, like many women working on the Hill in those years, talked with other female aides about a “list” of senators to avoid.

“You got to know which senators you didn’t want to be on an elevator alone with,” said Liz Tankersley, who was Biden’s legislative director from 1985 to 1993. “No one ever said Joe Biden was one of them.”

On that list in 1993, according to multiple staffers, was Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore. He later resigned, in 1995, after the public revelation that he had engaged in years of aggressive sexual behavior toward women, including staffers. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., was also infamously on the avoid-elevator list, staffers claimed. So was another now-deceased lawmaker — Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

“I know some of those people on the list,” said former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat from Arizona who served from 1977 to 1995 and sat on the Judiciary Committee with Biden for many years. “There were several, it was almost common knowledge. And Biden was never mentioned in any of that. He went home every night to Delaware.”

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I see a range of things that might have happened between Reade and Biden:

at the extreme, Biden did something horrible a long time ago and, as far as we know (and by now we would most likely know) never did anything similar ever again.
In that scenario, the Biden we vote on in November is not the Biden who assaulted Reade.

at the other extreme, Reade has a, possibly legitimate, grievance against Biden's office from the time she worked there, possibly involving inappropriate physical contact or speech, but falling far short of coercion or assault. And since then, Reade has escalated the accusations in the hopes of profiting from doing so.

Your "range" seems to be lacking the option that Reade made the whole thing up, probably for attention, maybe she even began with the false claim after being fired from Biden's office.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well those two investigative pieces put this to bed. Reade has lived a life as a grifter. She plays on people's sympathies and coasts along from grift to grift.

And when you combine that with the new evidence that Biden did not have staffers work fundraisers, let alone pick out women with "nice legs", and the fact that the only hallway where the supposed assault could have happened is just not a place it could have physically taken place I think we can declare this a non story.

This^
We have two strong pieces of evidence, the PBS report on an investigation and the Vox description of what has happened over the last year with the claim itself.

Quote:

A life long con artist found some Bernie Bros that were willing to push a dubious story because they were determined to subvert the will of voters and have Fingerwag White Flight installed as the nominee even though people had coalesced against him and people allowed their prejudices to keep this going long past when it should have.

Goes a bit further speculating than I might but I see where you are coming from.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

There's also a link to a summary.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...es-allegations

Thanks for the summary.

I agree that the evidence of Reade's story is more than paper thin and the evidence supporting that she is a liar and fabricates stories to her benefit is growing.

As I said earlier (and which some challenged unsuccessfully) is that sexual harassment/assault is a pattern of behavior...a mindset. This article reinforces that.

Quote:

Sherry Hamby, the founding editor of the academic journal The Psychology of Violence, also said that any pattern is possible.

She described the idea of a 50-year-old man, the age Biden was at the time of the alleged attack, committing his first and only act of sexual assault as improbable. “In terms of likely statistical pattern, that would be an incredibly unlikely trajectory to see,” Hamby said.

Additionally, it also speaks of the culture at the time when several Senators were well known as gropers whom female staffers advised each other to avoid being alone with. Biden was never included in that group.

I found it interesting that the man who worked closely with Reade and had the desk next to hers said she was fired for not doing her job and it was he who complained about her work. I realize I'm speculating (before certain people jump in and accuse me of character assassination) but I can't help but suspect that Reade has had difficulty holding a job for very long. I suspect this may be another pattern with Reade and why she has had constant financial problems. Reade is not a stupid woman and has a law degree so one has to wonder why she was always in financial straits.

As for the 3 people who say Reade told them about being harassed by Biden after she left his staff, I think they are being truthful. But I think Reade was lying to them, manipulating them. Why? Perhaps to gain sympathy
as others said she did quite often in order to avoid or delay paying her rent or to borrow money. She played that game with accusations of being an abused wife trying to escape her husband's violence...when she was already divorced for years.

Frankly, I see a picture emerging of a woman with some very serious emotional problems.

Now all of you who will accuse me of character assassination, blah blah blah....don't bother. What I think of Reade's character is based on what I've learned of her from those who knew her and worked with her. And it is not a pretty picture.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your "range" seems to be lacking the option that Reade made the whole thing up, probably for attention, maybe she even began with the false claim after being fired from Biden's office.

Correct.
My lower range should have ncluded any offense being mostly in Reade mind, re-interpreted years after the fact.
.

[SuburbanTurkey]

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

ThePrestige, and other, have already made the relevant point about this. Reade's allegations, as they stand now, are impossible to verify. Unless some new detail comes out, it's likely to remain unverifiable. Biden has denied it, and there's no road to certainty one way or the other. It's largely a dead issue.

This attempt to smear Reade is pathetic and unworthy of anyone calling themselves a skeptic. It has very little to do with vindicating Biden and a lot to do with punishing someone who dared cause a problem for their preferred candidate. This attempt to slant Reade by bringing up irrelevant failings of her personal life is a punitive campaign against a sexual assault accuser. The party of MeToo is showing what it really believes in.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Not necessarily. We will almost never have direct evidence as you describe; but, we can often have corroborating/circumstantial evidence. With Reade (and Ford) we can't even have much of that. They told people contemporaneously, that's not nothing, but it's also not much. It happened decades ago. Given the lack of evidence and the remoteness of the alleged incident, it's the kind of accusation that each person either has to decide to give some weight to, or they don't. I don't blame people if they reject it out of hand. I don't fault people for thinking, given Biden's creepy behaviour with women, "yeah, that could have happened."

You are claiming that based on Biden's pattern of rubbing shoulders, you have no problem believing he escalated that to sexual assault. Yet you also claim that Reade's pattern of falsely claiming victimhood has absolutely no bearing on this instance of her claiming victimhood.

On the one hand you're willing to believe someone escalated a pattern drastically, but on the other you're unwilling to believe a pattern continued. It certainly seems like you aren't applying the same standards to Biden's credibility and patterns as you are to Reade's.

Originally Posted by xjx388

What I have a problem with is dismissing the claim because you found out that the accuser has some issues with her "credibility." I mean, it's like you didn't even read the part you snipped out. Do you not see the problems with such an approach?

Metoo was never meant to mean that we should believe any accusation despite evidence against it. Twisting it to mean that would allow someone with a long document history of conning people with false claims of victimhood to do it again, to the detriment of the country this time.

Originally Posted by xjx388

"Word alone" is never enough to take an allegation too seriously. "Bob embezzles from his company!" is an allegation for which there is no evidence for. It's just an allegation. Why should anyone give it much weight at all? Let's say the person making the allegation has an impeccable reputation -no black marks, no history of lies, manipulation or theft. Does this make the allegation more likely to be true? Even if no evidence can be found? I don't think it does. There is either evidence or there isn't.

When there were just a couple of "word alone" claims that Reade engages in her typical MO, I was including "if this is true" to my statements. Now that we have a whole lot more than just one, the evidence is overwhelming.

We're to the point where multiple coworkers and clients are all telling you how Bob embezzled from them (with documentation to prove it), don't believe his pitch because he's going to embezzle from you too. And you are clutching your pearls because how dare they attack his character.

Originally Posted by xjx388

If a prostitute alleges rape, does her illegal activity make her accusation less likely to be true? No it does not.

If a prostitute with a documented history of attempted extortion involving "pay me more or I'll say you raped me" claims alleges rape, I'd say it does make her accusation less likely to be true.

Originally Posted by xjx388

It's a fault in human nature that women who have "shady" pasts are less likely to believed. Why advocate a strategy that perpetuates this injustice?

Investigating their claims and their history with making similar claims is necessary to determine if this claim, with no evidence for and plenty of evidence against, is likely to be true.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

ThePrestige, and other, have already made the relevant point about this. Reade's allegations, as they stand now, are impossible to verify. Unless some new detail comes out, it's likely to remain unverifiable. Biden has denied it, and there's no road to certainty one way or the other. It's largely a dead issue.

This attempt to smear Reade is pathetic and unworthy of anyone calling themselves a skeptic. It has very little to do with vindicating Biden and a lot to do with punishing someone who dared cause a problem for their preferred candidate. This attempt to slant Reade by bringing up irrelevant failings of her personal life is a punitive campaign against a sexual assault accuser. The party of MeToo is showing what it really believes in.

I agree that her financial problems are best left out of the discussion.

Tip: Best then not to repeatedly troll the thread with this information, ST.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

ThePrestige, and other, have already made the relevant point about this. Reade's allegations, as they stand now, are impossible to verify. Unless some new detail comes out, it's likely to remain unverifiable. Biden has denied it, and there's no road to certainty one way or the other. It's largely a dead issue.

This attempt to smear Reade is pathetic and unworthy of anyone calling themselves a skeptic. It has very little to do with vindicating Biden and a lot to do with punishing someone who dared cause a problem for their preferred candidate. This attempt to slant Reade by bringing up irrelevant failings of her personal life is a punitive campaign against a sexual assault accuser. The party of MeToo is showing what it really believes in.

I take it you didn't bother looking at the PBS piece on this.

Did you look at the Vox piece?

Seems like you decided any evidence was about unfairly smearing the accuser and you've done nothing to unconfirm that bias.

Very little if anything in the PBS piece is about Reade. It is all about vindicating Biden. You really should look at it and as far as 'being a true skeptic' look up the part about confirmation bias.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Metoo was never meant to mean that we should believe any accusation despite evidence against it. Twisting it to mean that would allow someone with a long document history of conning people with false claims of victimhood to do it again, to the detriment of the country this time.

It's interesting what you can learn from what someone thinks is a gotcha.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

It's interesting what you can learn from what someone thinks is a gotcha.

Indeed. Simultaneously complaining that all women should be ignored unless there's direct evidence to prove their claim and that the woman in this particular accusation should be believed despite actual evidence against her because "metoo" certainly says a lot about the posters holding those positions.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Metoo was never meant to mean that we should believe any accusation despite evidence against it.

I’m also not aware that MeToo has manifested itself as the worst case version that its critics claim.

“Believe women” isn’t about denying due process.

It’s about treating allegations seriously, which includes a thorough investigation as part of due process.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by varwoche

I agree that her financial problems are best left out of the discussion.

Tip: Best then not to repeatedly troll the thread with this information, ST.

I like how you skipped past all the people who keep appealing to her financial problems, in order to call out the one guy who's acknowledging their appeals.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Metoo was never meant to mean that we should believe any accusation despite evidence against it.

Pretty sure that's exactly what it was meant to mean. Especially about circumstantial evidence and smear campaigns against the accuser.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Pretty sure that's exactly what it was meant to mean. Especially about circumstantial evidence and smear campaigns against the accuser.

You're wrong.

[Scopedog]

Christine Blasey-Ford was traumatized for life due to her alleged assault, perhaps Tara Reade's trauma broke her mentally and grifting became a survival tool. We know the alleged assault occured before August 1992 and she was dealing with the financial debt or fraud problem around that time. If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault than #metoo must #believeallwomen, conclude that she was traumatized for life by whatever Biden may have done to her, and they must #hoistontheirownpetard.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

This is a crude mischaracterization. I've had students who fail to attend class, miss deadlines, and bomb exams, but the vast majority of them are not deceitful or manipulative. You're confusing reliability with credibility.

Some students are not going to deliver their term paper on defensive neo-realism. Occasionally one exhausting person will fail to deliver AND s/he will try to suck you into their carnival of horrors.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Scopedog

Christine Blasey-Ford was traumatized for life due to her alleged assault, perhaps Tara Reade's trauma broke her mentally and grifting became a survival tool. We know the alleged assault occured before August 1992 and she was dealing with the financial debt or fraud problem around that time. If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault than #metoo must #believeallwomen, conclude that she was traumatized for life by whatever Biden may have done to her, and they must #hoistontheirpetard.

Maybe she would have been able to handle the original debt problem more effectively, if not for the the sudden trauma at that time. Instead of pulling out of it, she ended up spiraling farther in. Kind of like Joe Biden's fingers, perhaps.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by wareyin

You're wrong.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Scopedog

Christine Blasey-Ford was traumatized for life due to her alleged assault, perhaps Tara Reade's trauma broke her mentally and grifting became a survival tool. We know the alleged assault occured before August 1992 and she was dealing with the financial debt or fraud problem around that time. If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault than #metoo must #believeallwomen, conclude that she was traumatized for life by whatever Biden may have done to her, and they must #hoistontheirownpetard.

Ah yes, the George Zimmerman defense.

Evidence that he was violent before the incident doesn’t matter and to mention it is just character assassination.

Evidence that he was violent after the incident are just an indication that he was broken and traumatized by his ordeal.

Therefore, despite a history of violence throughout his adult life, George Zimmerman was not a violent person.

Airtight logic, that is.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

There's also a lot of evidence that Biden, at the time, was a reasonable gentleman who would not have asked her to cater to a funding meeting, and who was one of the senators who women who worked for other senators knew to be safe.

*And* the people she claimed she informed had never heard of it.

*And* one of the few people who initially agreed has now retracted.

Wanna know what convinced me once and for all that Kavenaugh was guilty? It was the fact that the party, at the place she alleged, involving the people she alleged, was clearly written on *his* calandar. Lindsay Graham clearly noticed, too, because that's when he suddenly screwed his face up and started ranting and screaming. In this case, the evidence we expect to find, is simply not there, and Raede has a history of falsely claiming to be a victim.

When she first came out, I was leading towards her, but aid it should be looked into. It's now been looked into rather extensively, and *everything* is pointing toward Biden's innocence. "Believe women" is a default position while there's an investigation, not something you do when you're a juror, get it right.

[Scopedog]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Ah yes, the George Zimmerman defense.

Evidence that he was violent before the incident doesn’t matter and to mention it is just character assassination.

Evidence that he was violent after the incident are just an indication that he was broken and traumatized by his ordeal.

Therefore, despite a history of violence throughout his adult life, George Zimmerman was not a violent person.

Airtight logic, that is.

I stated: "If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault ... " I assume there was some delay between the incident and August 1992 when she left the staff. I don't think we know when the currently first known debt or fraud problem started. Is there evidence of debt or fraud before the approximate time of the alleged assault?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Scopedog

I stated: "If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault ... " I assume there was some delay between the incident and August 1992 when she left the staff. I don't think we know when the currently first known debt or fraud problem started. Is there evidence of debt or fraud before the approximate time of the alleged assault?

Reade claims the assault took place in 1993.

https://www.theunion.com/news/local-...senate-office/

The check fraud took place in 1992.

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/15/dir...-court-emails/

So yes, there is evidence.

Feels like maybe something you should have looked into before you floated your ridiculous theory.

[Cain]

I tend to follow this crazy heuristic: Be wary people with multiple aliases. It helps filter out the Alexandra McCabes and John Barrons.

[Scopedog]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Reade claims the assault took place in 1993.

https://www.theunion.com/news/local-...senate-office/

The check fraud took place in 1992.

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/15/dir...-court-emails/

So yes, there is evidence.

Feels like maybe something you should have looked into before you floated your ridiculous theory.

The update with the start date of the check issue is from 2 days ago (I made a mistake of memory on the year she left the staff in my post) but thank you for the correction.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

Yes, you see lots of evidence of her being broke and not paying her rent and people she borrowed money from. But what you ignore...and I don't think that is an accident...is that she lied several times about being an abused wife trying to escape her husband in order to get money from people. She presented herself as a current victim when she was no longer an abused wife (if ever) and had not been for years. She not only failed to pay back money because she was 'poor' (as you tried to present her) but she planned to steal money/objects. She planned to charge her vet bills to the rescue. Twice. That was no accident. She also stole law books she had been lent from another one of her victims. Give me a break with this "Reade was often unreliable" whitewashing. She was a con artist.

Quote:

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

If you have to have this explained to you for the umpteenth time, then you aren't paying attention.

Quote:

ThePrestige, and other, have already made the relevant point about this. Reade's allegations, as they stand now, are impossible to verify. Unless some new detail comes out, it's likely to remain unverifiable. Biden has denied it, and there's no road to certainty one way or the other. It's largely a dead issue.

Is that why there is a pro-Trump campaign ad using Reade to attack Biden? Is that why Republicans are using Reade to attack their Dem rivals? It's most certainly not a 'dead issue'.

Quote:

This attempt to smear Reade is pathetic and unworthy of anyone calling themselves a skeptic. It has very little to do with vindicating Biden and a lot to do with punishing someone who dared cause a problem for their preferred candidate. This attempt to slant Reade by bringing up irrelevant failings of her personal life is a punitive campaign against a sexual assault accuser. The party of MeToo is showing what it really believes in.

[/quote]

This is beyond ludicrous. It has everything to do with vindicating Biden and nothing to do with "punishing" Reade. I don't give a crap about Reade. I have no interest in "punishing" her for anything. What I was, and am, concerned with is establishing if Biden committed a sexual assault. And nothing, absolutely nothing, Reade has said convinces me in the slightest that he did. On the other hand, the more I learn about her, the more convinced I am that she is lying.

What I do see are some very disgruntled Sanders supporters who are angry that he lost the nomination to Biden and some pro-Trumpers who want Biden to be guilty for obvious reasons.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’m also not aware that MeToo has manifested itself as the worst case version that its critics claim.

“Believe women” isn’t about denying due process.

It’s about treating allegations seriously, which includes a thorough investigation as part of due process.

This.

But apparently a thorough investigation cannot include looking into the accuser's history as that is just 'character assassination' and 'smearing' when facts are found that do not reflect well on the accuser's credibility.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

What I do see are some very disgruntled Sanders supporters who are angry that he lost the nomination to Biden

...do you, though? We've had a few conservative trolls pretend to be disgruntled Sanders supporters, too. I'd keep one eye on the possibility that they're just astroturfing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I take it you didn't bother looking at the PBS piece on this.

Did you look at the Vox piece?

Seems like you decided any evidence was about unfairly smearing the accuser and you've done nothing to unconfirm that bias.

Very little if anything in the PBS piece is about Reade. It is all about vindicating Biden. You really should look at it and as far as 'being a true skeptic' look up the part about confirmation bias.

[SG- first thread vindication ]

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Scopedog

Christine Blasey-Ford was traumatized for life due to her alleged assault, perhaps Tara Reade's trauma broke her mentally and grifting became a survival tool. We know the alleged assault occured before August 1992 and she was dealing with the financial debt or fraud problem around that time. If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault than #metoo must #believeallwomen, conclude that she was traumatized for life by whatever Biden may have done to her, and they must #hoistontheirownpetard.

Reade claims it happened in the summer of 1993, not 1992. Since the check "problem" occurred before that, she was already having financial problems. She was only able to hold onto the Biden job for 8 months before being fired (not quitting as she sometimes claimed) for failure to carry out her job responsibilities. Sound familiar? Being irresponsible is a pattern for Reade.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Maybe she would have been able to handle the original debt problem more effectively, if not for the the sudden trauma at that time. Instead of pulling out of it, she ended up spiraling farther in. Kind of like Joe Biden's fingers, perhaps.

She was so traumatized that she repeatedly and proudly told people that she had worked with Biden, implying she was on his staff far longer and worked more closely with him than was true. She was so traumatized that she praised Biden for his work on sexual harassment/assault legislation. That's some traumatized.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Cain

I tend to follow this crazy heuristic: Be wary people with multiple aliases. It helps filter out the Alexandra McCabes and John Barrons.

Changing her name so many times raises a red flag for me. Reade claims it was to hide from her abusive ex- husband. But what evidence is there that her ex harassed her in any way? Were protection orders taken out by her after the divorce? Did she make police reports of harassment? Not that anyone has mentioned and I don't think it's illogical to assume that has been looked into by investigators. They'd be a matter of public record.

People change their names multiple times often to avoid being found...including by creditors. Since no protection orders or allegations of abuse after the divorce reported to the police have been brought to light, I suspect the name changes had more to do with escaping creditors. It would fit with her pattern of not taking responsibility.

(Yeah, yeah....character assassination! Smear job!. Save it for someone who cares.)

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

...do you, though? We've had a few conservative trolls pretend to be disgruntled Sanders supporters, too. I'd keep one eye on the possibility that they're just astroturfing.

The ones I'm thinking of were Sanders supporters long before he dropped out of the race. They had no reason to be 'disgruntled' before then. But your point about trolls is still relevant.

[Tero]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I see a range of things that might have happened between Reade and Biden:

at the extreme, Biden did something horrible a long time ago and, as far as we know (and by now we would most likely know) never did anything similar ever again.
In that scenario, the Biden we vote on in November is not the Biden who assaulted Reade.

at the other extreme, Reade has a, possibly legitimate, grievance against Biden's office from the time she worked there, possibly involving inappropriate physical contact or speech, but falling far short of coercion or assault. And since then, Reade has escalated the accusations in the hopes of profiting from doing so.

Biden most likely did come on to her. However, the details seem a little Trumpy. Biden wishing some...whatever...with her initiated it with some touching. But as to how far it went, a person keeping it to herself 30 years would tend to embellish it a bit to make it "real". Of course he touched her, but a woman fully dressed is a bit difficult to go after in such a manner. Especially if it was not anything she expected and he was out of line.

Simple summary: he probably got tangled in her clothing in his "adventure."

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The ones I'm thinking of were Sanders supporters long before he dropped out of the race. They had no reason to be 'disgruntled' before then. But your point about trolls is still relevant.

Same here - their response to his proposal for the government to pay mortgages and rents directly is "We don't believe him", and their response to the Biden/Sanders joint comittees "which contain quite a few excellent names I recognize such as Erc Holder and AOC is "Wah, we don't care!"

But really, this is just the Bernie Bro crowd - the normal Sanders vetoers have been noting their approval.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Tero

Biden most likely did come on to her. However, the details seem a little Trumpy. Biden wishing some...whatever...with her initiated it with some touching. But as to how far it went, a person keeping it to herself 30 years would tend to embellish it a bit to make it "real". Of course he touched her, but a woman fully dressed is a bit difficult to go after in such a manner. Especially if it was not anything she expected and he was out of line.

Simple summary: he probably got tangled in her clothing in his "adventure."

Why on earth is it "likely" he did come onto her? None of his many staffers who worked with him said he EVER treated women with anything but respect. He was never included in the female staffers' "list of senators to avoid getting on an elevator alone with." In fact, they said he had the reputation of treating women as equals to men. Your speculation is not based on any evidence whatsoever.