Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

Beachryan said:
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?
Click to expand...
Joe Biden is a shit candidate that literally no one can come up with a reason to vote for, other than "he's better than Trump." So even if they dropped him and the accusation then turned out to be false, it'd probably be a net-positive for them.
 
Halftrack said:
Joe Biden is a shit candidate that literally no one can come up with a reason to vote for, other than "he's better than Trump." So even if they dropped him and the accusation then turned out to be false, it'd probably be a net-positive for them.
Click to expand...
don't sell them short, joe biden also has a black friend
 
Halftrack said:
Joe Biden is a shit candidate that literally no one can come up with a reason to vote for, other than "he's better than Trump." So even if they dropped him and the accusation then turned out to be false, it'd probably be a net-positive for them.
Click to expand...
Sadly I do kind of agree there. Then again, all of the wise were telling us that Bernie Sanders will lose in November. And personally I'd take Bernie from weekend at Bernie's over Trump (cue jokes about far Biden is from that - fair ones)
 
Beachryan said:
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?
Click to expand...

thats a fair question. These are almost always situations where nobody else was present and "hard" evidence is scarce. The chances of getting much evidence about an incident that (might have) happened 27 years ago are close to zero. I don't know if there are people/records that could add anything useful.

In the legal system we have the presumption of innocence. The burden of prove is on the prosecution and they have to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We know that justice systems struggle badly with cases of sexual violence (= perpetrators don't get punished) and its still very hard to come up with a better system for this problem.

In the context of politics, especially when we talk about the presidency (or supreme court justices....), relying on legal standards/values is a mistake. It has to be almost the opposite. When there is doubt that the person is innocent, (s)he shouldn't be considered. In the context of the justice system its much more important to not lock up innocent people even so this results in guilty men escaping punishment. When it comes to the heads of governments, I am much more worried about electing guilty people even so this increases the chances of making the opposite error. My view is that we can be honest about the problems of these cases and the resulting uncertainty. I don't have to pretend that I know what happened by doing some magical detective work on flimsy evidence. The justice system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused, because the alternative would be even worse. In the context of politics, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the accuser unless there are gigantic red flags. When I have learned anything from the last years, its that powerful men are pretty big offenders regardless of background (media, culture, sports, accademia, ....(*insert long list*)). A lot of accusations turned out to be true and its hard overstate how widespread this was/is. This can only change, when the uncertainty is not reflexively leveraged against the accuser.

I followed the Kavanaugh disaster fairly closely and this was an absolute no-brainer. Never ever in a million years should he have been appointed. I didn't follow the accusations against Biden in great detail. From my (superficial) perspective these two cases are quite different. Yet I still won't disregard these accusations . Maybe I know more in 6 month and end up concluding that this was all bullshit. I doubt it, but I still wouldn't regret being strongly against Biden as long as I don't know more.

disclaimer: in terms of politics Biden would be easily one of my favorites when I only consider the more realistic ones.
 
Generally I'd be quick to criticise people who would prefer to cast their vote for a candidate who has zero chance of winning rather than casting their vote for the least-worst of the candidates who could have actual impact on the country.

A credible sexual assault accusation against that "least worst" option would definitely see me bail on that position though. If those were the options I was given then I'd prefer not to participate.
 
PedroMendez said:
thats a fair question. These are almost always situations where nobody else was present and "hard" evidence is scarce. The chances of getting much evidence about an incident that (might have) happened 27 years ago are close to zero. I don't know if there are people/records that could add anything useful.

In the legal system we have the presumption of innocence. The burden of prove is on the prosecution and they have to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We know that justice systems struggle badly with cases of sexual violence (= perpetrators don't get punished) and its still very hard to come up with a better system for this problem.

In the context of politics, especially when we talk about the presidency (or supreme court justices....), relying on legal standards/values is a mistake. It has to be almost the opposite. When there is doubt that the person is innocent, (s)he shouldn't be considered. In the context of the justice system its much more important to not lock up innocent people even so this results in guilty men escaping punishment. When it comes to the heads of governments, I am much more worried about electing guilty people even so this increases the chances of making the opposite error. My view is that we can be honest about the problems of these cases and the resulting uncertainty. I don't have to pretend that I know what happened by doing some magical detective work on flimsy evidence. The justice system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused, because the alternative would be even worse. In the context of politics, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the accuser unless there are gigantic red flags. When I have learned anything from the last years, its that powerful men are pretty big offenders regardless of background (media, culture, sports, accademia, ....(*insert long list*)). A lot of accusations turned out to be true and its hard overstate how widespread this was/is. This can only change, when the uncertainty is not reflexively leveraged against the accuser.

I followed the Kavanaugh disaster fairly closely and this was an absolute no-brainer. Never ever in a million years should he have been appointed. I didn't follow the accusations against Biden in great detail. From my (superficial) perspective these two cases are quite different. Yet I still won't disregard these accusations . Maybe I know more in 6 month and end up concluding that this was all bullshit. I doubt it, but I still wouldn't regret being strongly against Biden as long as I don't know more.

disclaimer: in terms of politics Biden would be easily one of my favorites when I only consider the more realistic ones.
Click to expand...
Good post, I think that's what a lot of us are struggling with.
 
Rado_N said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seen it happen here in my country. One of the forefronts of women activism in Iceland had made the same statements. Then her celebrity boyfriend got accused of rape and she defended him, completely going back on her own words. I've not heard anything from her since then at looking at her Twitter not many people care about what she has to say.
 
Whatever the truth of this particular allegation, his habit of snuggling up to women is not only creepiness in disguise, it's also deeply sexist: it implies that women are so lacking in fortitude & competence they can't do without a man's breathy whispers of 'encouragement'. Even if he has no sexual intent in his actions, they are pleasing to him, as they suggest his (supposed) superiority.
 
Eboue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did I say that?

Considering that you love keeping a database of my posts, I guess you can quote that.
 
Last edited:
senorgregster said:
Really?
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Effectiveness

important bit:
Polygraphs measure arousal, which can be affected by anxiety, anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nervousness, fear, confusion, hypoglycemia, psychosis, depression, substance induced states (nicotine, stimulants), substance withdrawal state (alcohol withdrawal) or other emotions; polygraphs do not measure "lies".[13][23][24] A polygraph cannot differentiate anxiety caused by dishonesty and anxiety caused by something else.[25]
Click to expand...

it's especially worthless with cases like this as the victims will almost certainly have some form of anxiety or trauma stemming from the assault

it's also possible to be trained towards "succesful" (in airquotes because there are no good polygraph results) outcomes in these tests
 
Silva said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Effectiveness

important bit:


it's especially worthless with cases like this as the victims will almost certainly have some form of anxiety or trauma stemming from the assault

it's also possible to be trained towards "succesful" (in airquotes because there are no good polygraph results) outcomes in these tests
Click to expand...
Well I wasn't saying she, the alleged victim, should take one, although she seems to have volunteered. Again, this is used in security clearances here so there is clearly a use, even if it is just a first level test that is then followed up on. Someone in the highest office should have stricter, not lesser, levels of testing.
 
senorgregster said:
Well I wasn't saying she, the alleged victim, should take one, although she seems to have volunteered. Again, this is used in security clearances here so there is clearly a use, even if it is just a first level test that is then followed up on. Someone in the highest office should have stricter, not lesser, levels of testing.
Click to expand...
all that's going to happen in that scenario is we exclude people who can't afford polygraph training from office, they are very easy to trick
 
senorgregster said:
Surely not for a man with dementia as everyone claims Biden has.
Click to expand...
I mean, a person with dementia wouldn't need to trick it, since they wouldn't know what hell was going on anyway.

When lying is second nature to you, like for Biden, doing so isn't going to trigger a physiological response that'll be picked up by a polygraph.
 
hobbers said:
A man with dementia wouldn't even remember the events he was being questioned about so would walk any polygraph.

Trump probably would ace one too, anyone delusional would. As would any psychopath. Lie detectors only belong in the realm of shit reality tv.
Click to expand...
And in the realm of security clearance
 
Silva said:
Click to expand...


When I was bartending in the late 90s in Los Angeles, I heard from a few girls that Maher was very "sleazy", "creepy" and "touchy-feely" at the bar he used to frequent. He's had that rep a long time around LA so I believe her 100%.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
When I was bartending in the late 90s in Los Angeles, I heard from a few girls that Maher was very "sleazy", "creepy" and "touchy-feely" at the bar he used to frequent. He's had that rep a long time around LA so I believe her 100%.
Click to expand...

I could tell that just by looking at the guy.
 
Situation with Tara Reade has become a mess.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/oath-biden-accuser-tara-reade-cited-bidens-work/story?id=70829512
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/21/tara-reade-biden-expert-testimony-274460

- She's testified for the prosecution as an expert in domestic violence cases for years but turns out she lied about her credentials to get that position.
- She testified under oath that she had a law degree from Seattle University and graduated from Antioch University in Seattle with a bachelor’s degree but turns out she never graduated from Antioch.
- She claimed instead that she had a special arrangement with a former chancellor to get the undergraduate degree but the University said there was no such arrangement and as such she doesn't have the undergraduate degree that Seattle University required for their law degree programme.
- She also lied about her role in Biden's office, saying she was a legislative assistant, working on the legislation Biden was involved in, when in reality she was a staff assistant, mostly sorting the mail out

In January 2019, she testified that she worked for Biden “as a legislative aide” – the same title she used to describe her position in at least four personal essays posted online.

“When you work as a legislative aide, you research the overarching issue of what the policy is or the law is they're trying to enact,” she said in court. “So I was reading and studying before and going to hearings and things like that.”

But, in fact, government records show Reade was a “staff assistant” on Biden’s team – a lower position than a “legislative aide.”

Reade seemed to acknowledge the difference in a podcast interview two months ago, when she said she “worked for legislative aides” on Biden’s staff.

“Pretty low on the totem pole,” she said of her position at the time. “I was working with the interns. So I supervised the intern program, and made sure all the mail was distributed where it was supposed to [be].”

When assisting legislative aides, she “would help go to a hearing and take notes, or write something,” she added.
Click to expand...

As a result, defence lawyers are now looking into the cases she was involved in where their clients were convicted to see if she committed perjury.

Her lawyer has dropped her after two weeks.
7th May: Douglas Wigdor announces he is representing her.
22nd May: Douglas Wigdor states he stopped representing her two days prior.

“Our Firm no longer represents Tara Reade. Our decision, made on May 20, is by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” Wigdor wote. “On that point, our view — which is the same view held by the majority of Americans, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll — has not changed.”

“Much of what has been written about Ms. Reade is not probative of whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted her, but rather is intended to victim-shame and attack her credibility on unrelated and irrelevant matters,” he wrote. “We genuinely wish Ms. Reade well and hope that she, as a survivor, is treated fairly. We have and will continue to represent survivors regardless of their alleged predator’s status or politics.”
Click to expand...
 
Appears so. Doesn't mean she's lying about Biden but her credibility is in tatters.
A shame if her allegations are true.
 
esmufc07 said:
So she’s a serial liar?
Click to expand...

There have also been stories about the numerous ways she manipulated and abused friends and acquaintances.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771

PBS interviewed 74 former Biden staffers and basically all of them cast doubt on the circumstances that Reade describes. Most said there was an office ban on Senate staff attending fundraisers and that Biden rarely, if ever, attended fundraisers in DC since he was always on the train back to Delaware each night.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations

Her adoration for Vladimir Putin and tweeting about the timing of her allegations for political impact don't help her credibility.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-allegations/

It's still possible that her accusations are true, but her credibility is shot. If this were a courtroom, she'd face similar cross examination to what has been reported over the last week.
 
Quality control
esmufc07 said:
@Eboue @Sweet Square @Silva
Click to expand...

you are a joke

i suppose it never crossed your mind to think that biden being a proven serial liar and a publicly chastised plagiarizer means his denial must be false. go back to promoting right wing smears of corbyn you schmuck
 
Last edited:
The evidence seems pretty conclusive now: lying and cheating provides immunity to rape. And we're over here thinking it was a longer skirt length. If only the real victims were better fibbers they could have saved themselves a lot of bother, and rape. A lie a day keeps the rapist at bay, sing it with me.
 
dumbo said:
The evidence seems pretty conclusive now: lying and cheating provides immunity to rape. And we're over here thinking it was a longer skirt length. If only the real victims were better fibbers they could have saved themselves a lot of bother, and rape. A lie a day keeps the rapist at bay, sing it with me.
Click to expand...
Or you know, people who lie and cheat might actually be lying again, and at the very least, there should be some evidence before we blindly believe a serial liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.