Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

[KirkDuyt]

Sigh. Never mind. Nuance is dead.

We might as well just flip a coin.

I was half joking. I see the point in the whole lesser of two evils story, I just find it a bit nihilistic to say, well, let's vote for the guy who might've just raped the one person. Sure repubs voted for Trump, but does that mean democrats should now do the same? It's tempting to just say feck it and do so, but than, to me, you have forever lost the moral highground.

It's mostly the hypocricy of some on the liberal spectrum that were screaming bloody death and murder during the kavanaugh thing and now support Biden. It's a mental leap I cant quite take.

I dont think that nuance applies to rape. If you do one, you're out.

 

[Silva]

I dont think that nuance applies to rape. If you do one, you're out.

and you can't expect people who believe the victim to just stfu

 

[Beachryan]

I was half joking. I see the point in the whole lesser of two evils story, I just find it a bit nihilistic to say, well, let's vote for the guy who might've just raped the one person. Sure repubs voted for Trump, but does that mean democrats should now do the same? It's tempting to just say feck it and do so, but than, to me, you have forever lost the moral highground.

It's mostly the hypocricy of some on the liberal spectrum that were screaming bloody death and murder during the kavanaugh thing and now support Biden. It's a mental leap I cant quite take.

I dont think that nuance applies to rape. If you do one, you're out.

I agree with the final point, and that the reaction has definitely been hypocritical - to an extent. And also that it's only the dems that take this seriously. For me personally, in both instances, I've spent hours of my life reading articles, listening to interviews and trying to form a view on the accusations. And that has gotten me to a point where I genuinely believe it's not difficult to see differences between Ford and Reade's claims, and their veracity.

But for some of the left, the very act of researching is enough to apparently make you anti-metoo, or anti-women, or pro-rapist. It's lunacy. It's this bizarre holier-than-thou opinion that also pervades on other issues - almost always to the point where it's a left-on-left argument about how morally virtuous the actions of someone on the left are relative to the cleaner-than-clean ideal that doesn't exist.

Imo, the biggest threat to the entire globe today is an abdication of sense from the US - in the form of a second Trump presidency. That is a bigger concern to me than anything else on the geopolitical spectrum. And if the left's desire to out-virtue themselves is what causes it, I really fear for us all.

 

[Beachryan]

and you can't expect people who believe the victim to just stfu

Where as you've made it extremely clear that you'd like those who believe the accused to stfu.

 

[Eboue]

i'm pretty sure all non votes, libertatian votes, green votes, swp votes etc. are trump votes so he won like 150m people

Yeah its like revan said, if you don't vote for Biden you are voting for trump. It doesn't matter if you are 12 years old or dead or live in another country. Anne frank effectively voted for trump. Theres only two rational options, anne.

 

[Silva]

Where as you've made it extremely clear that you'd like those who believe the accused to stfu.

i'm happy for you and the rest of the libs to keep going, it's been a real masterclass in all the problems highlighted by the metoo movement and has shown people who care which public figures they can and can't trust

 

[RedPed]

Doesn’t the bolded kind of work against each other? You’re saying no one is saying to absolve Biden, then you’re saying he can’t be judged.

No, not at all. All I'm saying is he may well be guilty but if people are saying he can't/shouldn't be president because of it, the precedent has already been set.

 

[BobbyManc]

Sigh. Never mind. Nuance is dead.

We might as well just flip a coin.

Ah yes the nuance between which perpetrator of sexual assault is worse than the other. We’re determining a presidential candidate here, not the length of someone’s prison sentence.

You’re bemoaning the death of nuance because people won’t endorse a presidential candidate accused of sexual assault on the basis the other candidate has committed a greater volume of sexual assaults.

Nobody's saying that either. The point was that if someone's serial predatory and deceitful behaviour can be overlooked to the extent that he is revered by many and even given the most powerful job in the world, why are people getting their knickers in a twist over a guy who is being accused of his first offence?

Yeah both actions are wrong but America really has no moral high ground on which they can pass judgement on Joe Biden.

It's now ok for Presidents to lie, cheat, defraud, abuse their power, be above the law, disregard protocols, bully and/or abuse people racially and sexually, commit high crimes and misdemeanours and stomp all over foreign diplomacy.

Trump has set the bar and precedents for many years to come and it's of their own making.

I mean this is just such a ridiculous line of thinking it barely merits engagement with. The same logic means Germany post 1945 should have been freely able to endorse a candidate for Chancellor who advocates concentration camps for political opponents and racially impure people because well “the precedent has been set so why are you getting your knickers in a twist over someone advocating only his first genocide?”

The argument you propose is that there is supposed to be a sliding scale from ‘guilty of no sexual assaults’ to ‘guilty of a vast number’ rather than the view that once your preferred presidential candidate begins to register on the scale, that in itself is all that matters. Instead you want to cry and point out ‘well the other guy is further on the scale so who are we to pass judgement it’s only his first offence?’

 

[VorZakone]

It only highlights again how weird this all is. You've got elections coming up in the United States and the choices are...Donald fecking Trump and Joe Biden.

 

[Cascarino]

I just tried to articulate my argument a few posts ago. That a second Trump term and a Biden Presidency are categorically not the same thing, despite people's attempts to reduce it to that. .

No one has said that here. If you asked everyone replying in this thread if they approve of trump, it would be an emphatic no. Trump is a horrible human being. No one is equating the two presidential nominees. The argument that we’re fine with Trump so we should give Biden a pass is an unfair argument. No one (here) is saying that. But just because Trump is terrible doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cast a critical eye on Biden, or give him a free pass.

It only highlights again how weird this all is. You've got elections coming up in the United States and the choices are...Donald fecking Trump and Joe Biden.

Spoiler

 

[PedroMendez]

@Beachryan

Biden is certainly better than Trump and your argument does/could make sense, if one can chose only between those two. Yet even in the original schedule, the democratic convention was in July; now its in August. Biden isn't and shouldn't be set in stone. He isn't even a super strong candidate, that couldn't possibly be replaced by someone with roughly the same chances of winning against Trump. The democratic party has still time to act.

There is an incredible low bar to clear: People who are accused of (sexual) violence shouldn't be considered for any of the (elected) top jobs in politics unless they have addressed the issue convincingly and in great detail. That shouldn't be too hard. You can rightfully point at the republicans, but that can't be an excuse for anyone else. Don't choose a potential perpetrator of (sexual) violence to run for president if you care about the issue.

 

[Silva]

 

[entropy]

Nobody's saying that either. The point was that if someone's serial predatory and deceitful behaviour can be overlooked to the extent that he is revered by many and even given the most powerful job in the world, why are people getting their knickers in a twist over a guy who is being accused of his first offence?

Yeah both actions are wrong but America really has no moral high ground on which they can pass judgement on Joe Biden.

It's now ok for Presidents to lie, cheat, defraud, abuse their power, be above the law, disregard protocols, bully and/or abuse people racially and sexually, commit high crimes and misdemeanours and stomp all over foreign diplomacy.

Trump has set the bar and precedents for many years to come and it's of their own making.

This is really problematic for several reasons. Do you think first time sex offenders don’t need to be punished? And can you not see the pattern of disgusting behavior from Biden?

 

[Raoul]

I just tried to articulate my argument a few posts ago. That a second Trump term and a Biden Presidency are categorically not the same thing, despite people's attempts to reduce it to that. That not even the allegations are similar in scope, reliability or veracity. I tried an example from football - pointing out that just because two players have played football, they are not the same footballers.

A Biden presidency, would, at the very least, get you:
- Appointment of full-time positions in the government. Trump has basically (thanks Steve Bannon) gutted key areas of the US government and either not appointed or put in place deliberately malignant figures designed to destroy instutions.
- A seat back at the big boy table of world affairs
- A cabinet with people who may know something about their fields
- Potential to re-balance the Supreme Court, or at least halt its descent into a conservative body
- A coherent plan for the state department, pentagon and so forth to follow
- A return to boring politics, instead of a Twitter-fun circus sideshow

I don't think you can really argue many of those points. But yeah, let's just flippantly say this election is a choice between two equivalents. Because man are we pissed about not having a progressive enough candidate, so let's burn it all down.

The reason all this sh*t pisses me off is because it is designed to get people thinking like that: oh they're the same. It's the same tactic used successfully in 14 f*cking trials on Benghazi. Despite absolutely nothing coming from them, the process was designed to lower the bar, spread doubt and make it about 'everyone is sh*t, so don't think about how sh*t we are'. Same with the email server. You think a republican would care if it turned out Trump was sending unencrypted sms messages with his 20 year old Nokia to Putin each night? Not a blip. But democrats and independents have to take all this much more seriously. As Steve Bannon said: you fill the zone with sh*t, then it doesn't matter how much your candidate smells.

Read this thread, and it's worked perfectly.

This is how the Dems are likely to see things in the end. Ultimately, this is more so about power than it is morality; where the person who is US President can greatly influence the future trajectory of global politics, economics, environmental policy, great power competition, and so on. Voters have consistently overlooked a variety of very bad flaws in a vast majority of candidates who eventually become President, and I suspect the trend will continue in this regard.

 

[DoomSlayer]

I was hoping this was a parody account, but a quick check shows it isn't.

 

[RedPed]

Ah yes the nuance between which perpetrator of sexual assault is worse than the other. We’re determining a presidential candidate here, not the length of someone’s prison sentence.

You’re bemoaning the death of nuance because people won’t endorse a presidential candidate accused of sexual assault on the basis the other candidate has committed a greater volume of sexual assaults.



I mean this is just such a ridiculous line of thinking it barely merits engagement with. The same logic means Germany post 1945 should have been freely able to endorse a candidate for Chancellor who advocates concentration camps for political opponents and racially impure people because well “the precedent has been set so why are you getting your knickers in a twist over someone advocating only his first genocide?”

The argument you propose is that there is supposed to be a sliding scale from ‘guilty of no sexual assaults’ to ‘guilty of a vast number’ rather than the view that once your preferred presidential candidate begins to register on the scale, that in itself is all that matters. Instead you want to cry and point out ‘well the other guy is further on the scale so who are we to pass judgement it’s only his first offence?’

Try and keep up. That is such a lame argument, it doesn't even make sense and it's not even what I'm referring to. The historical analogy is completely irrelevant.

This is really problematic for several reasons. Do you think first time sex offenders don’t need to be punished? And can you not see the pattern of disgusting behavior from Biden?

Again, let me spell it out. I've said already that I'm not defending Biden or doubting Reade's credibility. And if he is guilty, he should get what's coming to him and serve him right. There are a large proportion of rational people who will rightly be condemning him as much as they condemn Trump for all his shenanigans.

But then you also have a not so insignificant number that will be calling for Biden's head despite the fact that the current incumbent has done a lot worse. People are even saying that Trump could win a second term and they were worried about Biden even before this allegation came out.

How can that be? How can a serial predator, liar and cheat even be in the running for a second term? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Silva]

I was hoping this was a parody account, but a quick check shows it isn't.

#stopthestupid makes it perfect

 

[entropy]

@RedPed buddy you cannot make the case for Biden turn around and pretend to be shocked that people still want to vote for Trump. We have elected rapists before and by doing nothing to hold them accountable you’re actively taking part in absolving them of their wrongdoing. The whole song and dance about trump being horrible reveals more about your hypocrisy than you think.

 

[Silva]

How can that be? How can a serial predator, liar and cheat even be in the running for a second term? It doesn't make any sense to me.

the same reason why people are willing to vote for joe biden, if you spend long enough telling people there's no perfect options, or even passably good options, they're going to vote for the monster they like more or for the monster they dislike the least

in 2016, a substantial portion of the trump vote was the "feck clinton" vote and clinton vote the "feck trump" vote etc. etc. to the start of time

this only ends if enough people are willing to say this is wrong and i will not vote for it, sadly not enough people are willing to do this and instead people like you are arguing that one sexual assault is fine because see above and we go round in circles like "oh my god why this keep happening"

no matter who wins in november the political establishment has made it clear that it will tolerate sexual assault in almost all circumstances and the only to change that is if a few million regular voters make it clear that they will abstain from their normal candidate

 

[BobbyManc]

Try and keep up. That is such a lame argument, it doesn't even make sense and it's not even what I'm referring to. The historical analogy is completely irrelevant.


Again, let me spell it out. I've said already that I'm not defending Biden or doubting Reade's credibility. And if he is guilty, he should get what's coming to him and serve him right. There are a large proportion of rational people who will rightly be condemning him as much as they condemn Trump for all his shenanigans.

But then you also have a not so insignificant number that will be calling for Biden's head despite the fact that the current incumbent has done a lot worse. People are even saying that Trump could win a second term and they were worried about Biden even before this allegation came out.

How can that be? How can a serial predator, liar and cheat even be in the running for a second term? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Forgive me if I'm unmoved by your label of an argument as 'lame' when you made the point that 'why are people getting their knickers in a twist over a guy who is being accused of his first offence?
It's telling that you had to use 'offence' as a euphemism for sexual assault because if you'd actually typed it out like that you'd have realised what a reprehensible point you'd attempted to make. 'Why are people getting annoyed over a guy accused of sexual assault?'. Hmm, I fecking wonder. I don't know what else to say if you seriously think that the fact the other candidate is even worse somehow means the whole thing is supposed to be collectively shrugged at and just regarded as an unpleasant sideshow.

 

[Silva]

for the record, the video footage of joe biden harrasing teenage girls should have been enough to disqualify him from being nominated. that we're having a debate about whether or not sexual assault is disqualifying is beyond grim

 

[Beachryan]

@Beachryan

Biden is certainly better than Trump and your argument does/could make sense, if one can chose only between those two. Yet even in the original schedule, the democratic convention was in July; now its in August. Biden isn't and shouldn't be set in stone. He isn't even a super strong candidate, that couldn't possibly be replaced by someone with roughly the same chances of winning against Trump. The democratic party has still time to act.

There is an incredible low bar to clear: People who are accused of (sexual) violence shouldn't be considered for any of the (elected) top jobs in politics unless they have addressed the issue convincingly and in great detail. That shouldn't be too hard. You can rightfully point at the republicans, but that can't be an excuse for anyone else. Don't choose a potential perpetrator of (sexual) violence to run for president if you care about the issue.

I'm with you, but how does Joe Biden 'address the issue' convincingly and in great detail? That's all I'd like to know, what is the answer for him?
Where was he on the date in question? He can't answer that, because Reade can't remember a date, or even a month.

So what can Biden (or anyone accused without great detail) do? He's said categorically he did not do it. She pointed at a report to his office, he said open up the records. He said he supports every woman's right to speak up.

 

[Beachryan]

for the record, the video footage of joe biden harrasing teenage girls should have been enough to disqualify him from being nominated. that we're having a debate about whether or not sexual assault is disqualifying is beyond grim

I know you're obstinate about this, but my position is that sexual assault very much IS disqualifying. And that to date, the ONLY accusation of sexual assault against Biden is questionable, in my opinion.

You and many others keep trying to point at his (admittedly not ideal) placing of hands on shoulders in photos as equal and further evidence of sexual assault. It simply is not that. What is this video out of interest? If it were so obviously a man sexually harassing teenage girls as you eloquently describe it, I assume he already wouldn't be the candidate.

Is that what we'll get to next? When Warren replaces him, someone will show a super slo-mo of her patting some kids knee at an event and we can scrub her too? Next it'll be Bernie rising his arm in the air and if you edit it correctly, it's like Lenin?

 

[Beachryan]

Forgive me if I'm unmoved by your label of an argument as 'lame' when you made the point that 'why are people getting their knickers in a twist over a guy who is being accused of his first offence?
It's telling that you had to use 'offence' as a euphemism for sexual assault because if you'd actually typed it out like that you'd have realised what a reprehensible point you'd attempted to make. 'Why are people getting annoyed over a guy accused of sexual assault?'. Hmm, I fecking wonder. I don't know what else to say if you seriously think that the fact the other candidate is even worse somehow means the whole thing is supposed to be collectively shrugged at and just regarded as an unpleasant sideshow.

I agree if he was convicted of sexual assault. Or even if numerous journalists had researched the story and found a pattern, or any evidence whatsoever to prove it. Flip it on its head - if you're Joe Biden how do you clear up the Reade allegation? There's no date, there's no location, the only contemporaneous witness is her brother who has proven unreliable. There's no record, no police report and up until 18 months ago there is a history of her praising Biden and supporting - amongst other things - his position on violence against women.

How does Joe Biden 'prove' that he did not do this? And if he can't, where are we?

 

[Silva]

 

[Silva]

 

[Silva]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Flores#Allegations_against_Joe_Biden

 

[Beachryan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Flores#Allegations_against_Joe_Biden

"In March 2019, Flores wrote an op-ed for New York magazine's "The Cut" alleging then Vice President Joe Biden "inappropriately kissed and touched her after he offered to help her with her 2014 campaign" while the two were at a Las Vegas campaign rally.[38][39] She stated he walked up behind her, put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair, and planted a kiss on the back of her head. She wrote that, by acting in this manner, Biden had touched her in "an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it."

Again, it's not great but it's not sexual assault and don't pretend you've never seen an old person kiss the top of a kids head. If you put to the voters of America if they'd support Joe Biden despite him kissing someone on the back of her head - the answer would be very different from if he'd pinned someone up against a wall and raped her.

Do you really, REALLY not see a difference between that and what Reade is alleging?

 

[Silva]

"In March 2019, Flores wrote an op-ed for New York magazine's "The Cut" alleging then Vice President Joe Biden "inappropriately kissed and touched her after he offered to help her with her 2014 campaign" while the two were at a Las Vegas campaign rally.[38][39] She stated he walked up behind her, put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair, and planted a kiss on the back of her head. She wrote that, by acting in this manner, Biden had touched her in "an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it."

Again, it's not great but it's not sexual assault and don't pretend you've never seen an old person kiss the top of a kids head.

Do you really, REALLY not see a difference between that and what Reade is alleging?

do you really find it difficult to believe that some people don't want to vote for a man who harrases women, let alone assaults them? which part of "joe is too creepy even if tara reade hadn't come forward" is unbelievable to you?

these clips are horrific, if you can watch 2:30 in the stewart clip and still actively want to vote for that man you're beyond help

if you can read Flores allegation, and believe it, and still vote for joe, you have no moral authority

 

[Halftrack]

The mind boggles. "You guys, the precedent has been set. The Republicans elected a rapist, so we can't critcise the Dem's for running one." Like, the Dems had a chance to draw the line and say, "No, we're not the Republicans, we won't nominate a person with credible accusations of rape against them." Instead, they just threw out every one of their (supposed) principles, dragged the #MeToo movement out back and shot it, then turned around and started calling an alleged victim of sexual assault a liar.

 

[Rado_N]

Elizabeth Warren sticking by Biden really sticks in the craw after she was so front and centre of the “believe women” message.

“Believe women. Unless it’s super politically inconvenient.” Doesn’t quite have the same kick.

 

[Silva]

Elizabeth Warren sticking by Biden really sticks in the craw after she was so front and centre of the “believe women” message.

“Believe women. Unless it’s super politically inconvenient.” Doesn’t quite have the same kick.

"Don't vote for bernie because he told me a woman can't win"

 

[Maagge]

Again, the fact this back and forth keeps going just dumbfounds me. If I were a democrat I'd just avoid the hassle.
Why not pick a candidate who has zero allegations to his name? Is it that hard to find one in US politics?

 

[Beachryan]

if you can read Flores allegation, and believe it, and still vote for joe, you have no moral authority

If I believe that a man put his hands on a woman's shoulders and kissed the back of her head - but could still be a good President I have no moral authority? Okay.
What if he slept around in college? What if he cheated on his wife? What if he smoked weed? What if he got a DUI once? What if he once punched an opponent on a basketball court, and got charged with assault? What if one time, when he was really tired and his kids were young, he smacked one of them?

Are all of those things okay? If not, can you let me know which ones are, and are not? And while your'e doing so, provide guidance for voters so we know how to conform properly?

Because tens of millions of people have seen Joe Biden, and cast their votes for him. Hell, plenty will have seen that Jon Stewart clip and done so. Actually, you must kinda hate Jon Stewart - renowned idiot - who will also vote for Biden, despite producing that very video.

Sexual assault is a line. If he did what Reade says, that totally changes the game.

Not one person on here has responded as to how Biden is supposed to answer her allegation, further than what he has done.

 

[RedPed]

Forgive me if I'm unmoved by your label of an argument as 'lame' when you made the point that 'why are people getting their knickers in a twist over a guy who is being accused of his first offence?
It's telling that you had to use 'offence' as a euphemism for sexual assault because if you'd actually typed it out like that you'd have realised what a reprehensible point you'd attempted to make. 'Why are people getting annoyed over a guy accused of sexual assault?'. Hmm, I fecking wonder. I don't know what else to say if you seriously think that the fact the other candidate is even worse somehow means the whole thing is supposed to be collectively shrugged at and just regarded as an unpleasant sideshow.

Are you some sort of therapist because you seem to be able to tell me what I'm thinking with a great deal of conviction. Fair play. Nobody batted an eyelid when van Persie joined United even though he had been accused of rape. If I remember rightly, the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence but he must have been guilty because why else would the woman have made the allegation in the first place. Players have committed manslaughter and walked straight back into the team. People will always turn a blind eye when it suits them.

 

[Beachryan]

Again, the fact this back and forth keeps going just dumbfounds me. If I were a democrat I'd just avoid the hassle.
Why not pick a candidate who has zero allegations to his name? Is it that hard to find one in US politics?

Millions of people did vote for a candidate with zero allegations against his name. That came afterward. The question now is do you throw those votes away because of the allegation, and if so, shouldn't that allegation have to bear some burden of testing?

 

[Silva]

What if he slept around in college?

good

What if he cheated on his wife?

disqualifying

What if he smoked weed?

good

What if he got a DUI once?

disqualifying

What if he once punched an opponent on a basketball court, and got charged with assault?

disqualifying

What if one time, when he was really tired and his kids were young, he smacked one of them?

disqualifying

Are all of those things okay? If not, can you let me know which ones are, and are not? And while your'e doing so, provide guidance for voters so we know how to conform properly?

see above old man, see above

feel free to ask more questions that are extremely easy to answer for the majority of us

If I believe that a man put his hands on a woman's shoulders and kissed the back of her head - but could still be a good President I have no moral authority?

bro you've spent the last 2 weeks arguing that joe is the lesser of two evils now you're telling us he'd be a good president?

 

[Beachryan]

The mind boggles. "You guys, the precedent has been set. The Republicans elected a rapist, so we can't critcise the Dem's for running one." Like, the Dems had a chance to draw the line and say, "No, we're not the Republicans, we won't nominate a person with credible accusations of rape against them." Instead, they just threw out every one of their (supposed) principles, dragged the #MeToo movement out back and shot it, then turned around and started calling an alleged victim of sexual assault a liar.

Just as a thought experiment - what if Reade came out tomorrow and said it wasn't true, but this evening the DNC had confirmed that Biden would not be the candidate?

Would they say, jeez, we should probably have done some proper investigating on that one before making our minds up? Again, the reason they're not doing that is because the investigations to date have not looked good for Reade. For example, she gave the names of 3 staffers that she says she told - at the time - about the assault. All 3 were interviewed - on the record, and said not only do they not remember saying that, but they she never said it to them- obviously if she had they would remember. That's three independent sources that she picked out, none of whom can support her story. Should that not matter at all?

 

[Beachryan]

good


disqualifying


good


disqualifying


disqualifying


disqualifying



see above old man, see above

feel free to ask more questions that are extremely easy to answer for the majority of us

bro you've spent the last 2 weeks arguing that joe is the lesser of two evils now you're telling us he'd be a good president?

Bwahahahaha. Okay - your list of Presidential candidates must be pretty short my friend. And certainly not involved in politics.

Fair enough on the last point - I don't think Joe's gonna be a great President. But he'll be better than the alternative.

From my point of view the best thing that can happen is Warren gets on the ticket, then Joe has a health reason to step down. I don't want a Biden Presidency over a Sanders, or a Warren one. But I also find Reade's case flimsy, and don't want him to be Gary Hart-ed out of this.

 

[Silva]

Just as a thought experiment - what if Reade came out tomorrow and said it wasn't true, but this evening the DNC had confirmed that Biden would not be the candidate?

Would they say, jeez, we should probably have done some proper investigating on that one before making our minds up?

the only thing thoughts experiments reveal is how much the person posing them thinks