2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eboue said:
Yeah, thats the evidence. Theres never going to be any smoking gun. Thats not how these things work. But telling multiple people at the time and being retaliated against is extremely compelling.
Click to expand...
There are actually a lot of clips of Biden casually sniffing and touching women and children to a degree where they clearly feel uncomfortable. And that's in front of the camera. too... don't even want to know the kind of things he'd imagine doing off camera.
 
Eboue said:
Yeah, thats the evidence. Theres never going to be any smoking gun. Thats not how these things work. But telling multiple people at the time and being retaliated against is extremely compelling.
Click to expand...
Maybe, my understanding is at the time (1993) is that she accused Biden's 'people' of nurturing an environment that made her uncomfortable. That seems entirely possible given all we know of Joe touchy-feely nature. From the reporting I've read, the actual escalation from sexual harassment (which she reported then, and then also made news last April claiming) to sexual assualt (last month) is the bit that has me a bit skeptical.

And that's before we get into her bizarre love of Putin, but I guess that shouldn't factor into our thoughts.
 
Winrar said:
There are actually a lot of clips of Biden casually sniffing and touching women and children to a degree where they clearly feel uncomfortable. And that's in front of the camera. too... don't even want to know the kind of things he'd imagine doing off camera.
Click to expand...
I mean, sure, but are you saying that means you'd act in such a way that Donald J. Trump should continue to be President? Because you're using two rather different measuring sticks for what is acceptable.
 
Winrar said:
There are actually a lot of clips of Biden casually sniffing and touching women and children to a degree where they clearly feel uncomfortable. And that's in front of the camera. too... don't even want to know the kind of things he'd imagine doing off camera.
Click to expand...
Not saying those things aren't inappropriate these days but not long ago those things weren't. I ve come across many men (and women!) of that age range who are very touchy feely like that. Does it make me uncomfortable? Yes. Do I think there is malicious intent? Absolutely not. Do I understand why some folks think there might be? Sure. Id highly suggest watching more docs and even shows set in the times these people grew up in in the United States. It's a different era that explains - but doesn't justify it today. Question is did he change enough? Trump clearly did not and even brags about it. There are no stories of prostitution, going into changing rooms of teenage models, numerous rape/assault allegations, bribery, repeated sexist and discriminatory comments against genders and people otherwise different than himself for Biden like there are for Trump. Nothing to the same degree.

I'm going to disagree with Geralt of Rivia here - not all evil is the same evil.
 
Beachryan said:
Maybe, my understanding is at the time (1993) is that she accused Biden's 'people' of nurturing an environment that made her uncomfortable. That seems entirely possible given all we know of Joe touchy-feely nature. From the reporting I've read, the actual escalation from sexual harassment (which she reported then, and then also made news last April claiming) to sexual assualt (last month) is the bit that has me a bit skeptical.

And that's before we get into her bizarre love of Putin, but I guess that shouldn't factor into our thoughts.
Click to expand...

Another interesting side bar in all of this is that lawyers from the Time's Up movement apparently interviewed her to set up representation, then after the interview they declined to represent her, which has been referenced in a few articles as a reason why the media haven taken the bait.
 
Raoul said:
Another interesting side bar in all of this is that lawyers from the Time's Up movement apparently interviewed her to set up representation, then after the interview they declined to represent her, which has been referenced in a few articles as a reason why the media haven taken the bait.
Click to expand...

That was the original story that broke before her interview. Literally the fact that Time's Up had declined to represent her came to light before anyon knew who she is.

By February, she learned from a new conversation with Time’s Up, which also involved Director Sharyn Tejani, that no assistance could be provided because the person she was accusing, Biden, was a candidate for federal office, and assisting a case against him could jeopardize the organization’s nonprofit status.

On February 11, the NWLC program director wrote to Reade that she “wanted to let you know that after our conversation I talked further with our Director, Sharyn Tejani, about our ability to offer funding or public relations support in your case. Unfortunately, the Fund’s decision remains the same. … Please know how much I appreciate your courage in speaking out and appreciate what you shared over the phone, that you are speaking out so that your daughter and other young people can start their careers free of harassment.”

When reached for comment by The Intercept, the program director Reade had spoken to referred questions to a NWLC spokesperson, Maria Patrick, who said that the organization has legal constraints. “As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization, the National Women’s Law Center is restricted in how it can spend its funds, including restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election,” Patrick responded, when asked why the organizing declined to provide funds to Reade. “Our decision on whether or not to provide certain types of support to an individual should not be interpreted as our validation or doubt of the truthfulness of the person’s statements. Regardless, our support of workers who come forward regarding workplace sexual harassment remains unwavering.”
Click to expand...

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/
 
Just accept that you’re voting a rapist into power and move on. Stop trying to justify it with long posts of nonsense when you clearly aren’t qualified to talk about such issues. It is disgusting for the rest of us.
 
entropy said:
Just accept that you’re voting a rapist into power and move on. Stop trying to justify it with long posts of nonsense when you clearly aren’t qualified to talk about such issues. It is disgusting for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
What's the bar for calling somebody a rapist?
 
entropy said:
Just accept that you’re voting a rapist into power and move on. Stop trying to justify it with long posts of nonsense when you clearly aren’t qualified to talk about such issues. It is disgusting for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know if this pertains to Biden or Trump, and who the second half refers to.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
These days a credible allegation will do. Court of public opinion rules, especially for public figures.
Click to expand...
It's libel.

I'm sure Biden doesn't give a feck about a bunch of chodes on a Man Utd forum. But the court of public opinion is not legally binding. He'd be within his rights to sue.

If you rely on the court of public opinion, you end up with witch trials. Figuratively and literally.

It deserves to be called out because it cheapens the discourse.
 
Dante said:
It's libel.

I'm sure Biden doesn't give a feck about a bunch of chodes on a Man Utd forum. But the court of public opinion is not legally binding. He'd be within his rights to sue.

If you rely on the court of public opinion, you end up with witch trials. Figuratively and literally.

It deserves to be called out because it cheapens the discourse.
Click to expand...

OJ innocent
 
Dante said:
It's libel.

I'm sure Biden doesn't give a feck about a bunch of chodes on a Man Utd forum. But the court of public opinion is not legally binding. He'd be within his rights to sue.

If you rely on the court of public opinion, you end up with witch trials. Figuratively and literally.

It deserves to be called out because it cheapens the discourse.
Click to expand...

I don't think the US has UK style libel laws.
 
Really tough situation for AOC to be in politically. She needs to be true to her values and refrain from endorsing him however that will damage her ability to achieve things later in her political career within the party.
 
entropy said:
Irrespective of whether or not I am qualified. At least I am not gaslighting sexual assault victims like some of you on here. Disgusting.
Click to expand...
Please explain how anyone here is gaslighting a victim?

Is she a victim of sexual assault? I don't know. Did she claim last year at this time that she was a victim of sexual assault? No she did not. She's the one who chose to - both publically and privately - say that Biden did things that made her uncomfortable, and that - her term not mine - she felt sexually harassed.

Do I believe that and give credence to her claim? Sure do, I can absolutely see how Biden could be creepy and make someone uncomfortable.

Do I understand what would have changed in the last 12 months to re-trigger her memory and move from feeling uncomfortable to being sexually assaulted (thrown up against a wall and digitally penetrated) - no I do not, but I do not see a hugely logical reason to go from one to the other.

Hence, I view her claim with some skepticism.

That is not gaslighting. I really wish people would actually look up the use of that term, it gets used on here all the time and it's not being done right ffs.
 
Beachryan said:
He was found guilty and went to jail.
Click to expand...

Not for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman that he was accused of and later found responsible for in a civil trial.

OJ was found guilty of a number of offences while trying to steal back some of his sports memorabilia.
 
Eboue said:
He was found not guilty of murder. I think we all know what I was referring to. Not sure how your case is served by being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...
I mean the civil court - where I thought he was found guilty no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.