All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[TheDarman]

Cool. Watch it either turn into absolutely nothing (as it is) or be a slander match. They'll try and make it the Democrats version of Kavanaugh.....except Bidens not as sketchy as Kavanaugh nor will he start rambling about conspiracy theories and make himself look unfit for his job.

I wonder how far you can get with such a criminal compliant when you aren’t willing to have them speak to your friend and you brother doesn’t respond to requests for comment either. There’s also the issue that it can’t be proven, given the nature of the accusation, with DNA evidence. It also doesn’t match up with former Biden staffer accounts or how Biden and his team of politically savvy folks would have likely responded. This isn’t to mention her account contradicts itself at virtually every turn.

Also, I seem to recall that she said that she didn’t want to “help Trump” with her accusation. Now we’re in a period of time where Biden is the nominee. I don’t blame her, if it is true, for wanting justice. Though, the issue is that this alleged assault is far past the statute of limitations. And she also had claimed she views Trump as worse on both policy and sexual assault and didn’t want to help him. Now...we have a criminal compliant against the only person who may be able to beat Trump.

(Also, it seems highly unlikely that any staffer would have worn a skirt without tights or pantyhose back then. Dress for staffers was very strict and very conservative.)

[shooshoomanjoe]

You can always give your tax cut back to the government...

On the other hand, it's highly entertaining watching all these trump supporters turn to the socialist programs they allegedly despise.

[TheDarman]

Since this seems to be reering it’s head again, I’ll just repost this:

This article is a pretty decent deep dive into the allegations and whether or not they are validated by the evidence. Here are some key takeaways:

On the public nature of where the assault allegedly took place:

Morality aside, for a senator to sexually assault a staffer in a location with a nontrivial risk of discovery would require a credulity-stretching degree of recklessness. Keep in mind, too, that this was a moment of high awareness of sexual harassment and politicians were very much under the microscope. In March 1992, a little over a year before Biden’s alleged assault on Reade, Sen. Brock Adams, a liberal Democrat from Washington, dropped his bid for re-election after The Seattle Times published accounts by eight anonymous women accusing him of sexual assault. A few months later, in November of that year, a major scandal broke out when the Washington Post published a front-page story detailing allegations of sexual harassment by ten women — mostly former staffers but also lobbyists — against Sen. Robert Packwood, the five-term Republican Senator from Oregon who, like Biden, was known as a champion of women’s rights. Thirteen more women came forward in February 1993, about three months before Biden’s alleged assault on Reade. (By the way, none of the accusations against Packwood, which ranged from lewd jokes to aggressive sexual advances including forcible kissing, were as grave as Reade’s allegation against Biden). While Packwood hung on until 1995, the effect on his career was immediately devastating.

Reade alleges she did complain within the formal process, not about the assault, but about harassment:

That’s another startling detail that emerges from the Katie Halper interview. At one point, Reade says, “I actually did come forward in 1993 but not to the press. But I went through protocol and complained.” She then clarifies that her complaint was not about sexual assault but about sexual harassment, both toward herself — the unwanted touching and the incident with being asked to serve drinks because of Biden’s appreciation for her legs — and as a general part of the office atmosphere. She says that she informally complained to her female supervisor at first, then went to Biden’s then-chief of staff Denis Toner, and finally to top Biden advisor Ted Kaufman (who served out the remainder of Biden’s Senate term in 2009–2010 after Biden became vice president). She also says that as a result, she experienced retaliation from the higher-ups: she was told to dress more conservatively, and “they were finding fault with my work all the time, like every little thing.”

Context for the scandal:

Especially considering that the Bob Packwood scandal was still unfolding at that point, it seems likely that if this happened, a senior staffer would have informed Biden of this situation and cautioned him to stay away from Reade. At this point, “stupid and reckless” crosses over into “crazy.” Once again, that doesn’t prove Biden didn’t do it. But it counts against the probability that he did.

On attempts made to report sexual harassment:

While the sexual assault allegedly occurred with no witnesses, there are important details of Reade’s account that could be corroborated — namely, her other alleged mistreatment at Biden’s hands. Were any attempts made to reach Toner, Kaufman, or Reade’s female supervisor (whose name is bleeped out in the Halper interview but whom Salon has identified as Marianne Baker) for information on her complaint? Or to reach the female legislative aide who Reade says argued with other staffers on her behalf, saying that she shouldn’t be “objectified” as a cocktail server at Biden’s event?

The Intercept only got verification from those two sources close to Reade:

The Intercept’s Grim confirmed only that Reade’s brother and friend said she had told them contemporaneously about the sexual assault. “Beyond that, I’d rather not get into reporting process,” he wrote.

Biden’s former staff assert no compliant was made:

According to Salon’s Amanda Marcotte, both Toner and Baker deny that Reade ever complained to them about Biden wanting her to serve drinks because he liked her legs. Baker, who was Biden’s executive assistant from 1982 to 2000, has also released a statement asserting that she “never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone.” She described Reade’s story as “false allegations … in complete contradiction to both the inner workings of our Senate office and to the man I know and worked so closely with for almost two decades.”

On not being able to get sources to back up her account (which Reade says she has):

Newsweek, which reported on the accusation on March 27, apparently did not interview either of them; Marcotte writes that the brother did not respond to her query and Reade would not put her in touch with the friend.

On why she [Reade] didn’t come forward back then:

In the Halper interview, explaining why she didn’t report Biden’s behavior, Reade says: “It’s just, there was no framework back then and to be fully clear, my mom educated me after it happened that it was sexual assault. I felt, I felt like it was my fault, that I did bring it on.” Earlier, in a Medium essay, she wrote: “This was a time in the 1990’s when discretion was still on the side of the young princes who held office and allowed them to pillage as they saw fit without the nasty consequences.” And in her March 31 interview with Amy Goodman on the Democracy Now! broadcast, Reade said, “We didn’t use the term ‘sexual harassment’ a lot back then.”

1993 wasn’t a dystopian hellscape; women were more empowered than ever to share their story:

This will probably seem plausible to young ones for whom the 1990s are basically the Dark Ages. But some of us boomers still recall that 1992 was “The Year of the Woman,” a moment of feminist upheaval set off by Anita Hill’s testimony at Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The Hill-Thomas drama also sparked a “national conversation” on sexual harassment and sexual violence — basically, the #MeToo of the 1990s. As mentioned above, two U.S. Senators were among the casualties. The climate was such that, in August 1993, a New York Times Magazine article about the accusations against Packwood noted: “At a time when sexual harassment is such a highly charged issue, it can be dangerous to attempt to make distinctions between greater and lesser offenses.”

On having Reade’s image of Biden shattered by the alleged sexual assault despite allegations from her about sexual harassment:

I get that human emotions are complicated and often irrational. Perhaps Reade is saying that some part of her still believed Biden was a progressive champion of women’s rights and still looked up to him, and the sexual assault took away her last illusions. It doesn’t, by itself, invalidate her account. But it’s only one of many things that don’t quite add up.

Reade seems to be supportive of Biden and his comments as recently as 2017, nearly a quarter century after the alleged assault:

In 2016–2017, Reade “liked” or retweeted several tweets in praise of Biden on her “Tara McCabe” Twitter account which she stopped using in May 2017. Two are particularly notable.

One might, perhaps, construe these as bitter sarcasm. But Reade also “liked” tweets from the official Obama White House account about Biden receiving the Medal of Freedom in January 2017.
And in March of that year, she tweeted a comment referring to Biden — in a positive context — as her “old boss.”

There is before getting into the well-documented Russian discussion.

It’s not clearly false. But it certainly seems like there isn’t a whole lot to back this particular accusation up. Especially without other accusations of even a married Senator, as Biden was, having so much as a consensual affair outside his marriage (which surely would accompany, at the very least, a man willing to commit sexual assault to have an affair).

It also is worth noting that Biden is probably one of the most thoroughly vetted politicians in America today. He ran twice for president before (in 1988 and 2008) and was selected as Vice President by the Obama team (and those vetting processes aren’t cake walks either). It seems odd that, if Biden’s staff had been informed about any of this by Reade (sexual harassment even), that Obama’s team, looking for a safe choice, would’ve settled on Biden.

[Malvolio]

On the other hand, it's highly entertaining watching all these trump supporters turn to the socialist programs they allegedly despise.

Yeah, it is interesting when companies that refuse to pay their employees a living wage go begging the government for handouts, that they then pocket, rather than spreading the wealth to their employees.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

You can always give your tax cut back to the government...

What tax cut? I’m an individual, not some Fortune 500 company.

[Kirby101]

It's like Republicans go out of their way to prove how wrong they are about everything.

[Mister Mets]

The SALT cap.

It only raised taxes for people who deduct more than $10,000 in state and local taxes, who tend to be wealthy.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-explained

[Kirby101]

It only raised taxes for people who deduct more than $10,000 in state and local taxes, who tend to be wealthy.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-explained

That from someone living in New York. You should know how high the average property taxes are for middle class home owners in the New York metropolitan area. And to deny that this was used as punishment for blue States is disingenuous.

So the GOP is okay eliminating a tax break for Blue State middle class, but adds them for billionaires and Corporations. Good priorities.

[jetengine]

Reade stuff

Hey Darman, does Reade claim this happened simultaneously with the initial harrasment or after ?

[GindyPosts]

I’m gonna vote this November. Not gonna gamble on some kind of Armed revolution that is supported by some people who think the country is beyond saving and that it needs to be torn down.

Anarchy doesn't solve anything in the long term. You invariably run the risk of allowing a much worse system taking control in a power vacuum. This does not mean i support the status quo, but rather highlighting the risk of a total decimation of the establishment and what we have seen happens as a result.

[jetengine]

Anarchy doesn't solve anything in the long term. You invariably run the risk of allowing a much worse system taking control in a power vacuum. This does not mean i support the status quo, but rather highlighting the risk of a total decimation of the establishment and what we have seen happens as a result.

A friend of mine had this conversation with an anarchist

"I want anarchism to rule, no government"
"Ok, everything goes as you say. Then what"
"Well I'll have all this land and I'll take all the tinned food and we'd do what we want"
"Cool, so I'm going to kill you, burn down your home and steal everything"
"Wait, what why ? You cant?"
"Sure I can, I'm bigger then you and know Martial arts."
"But"
"Theres no rules buddy, I can do what I want"

[Tuck]

It only raised taxes for people who deduct more than $10,000 in state and local taxes, who tend to be wealthy.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-explained

Property Tax alone crosses that threshold for a of of New Yorkers. And even if one rents, it will be reflected in rent increases.

It's dinged a few retirees I know. People on fixed incomes.

[PaulBullion]

And don't forget yanking the separate pandemic team embedded in China exactly for scenarios like this one

Those guys were so homesick, and it was a big success for Trump to bring them home.

[Tuck]

A friend of mine had this conversation with an anarchist

"I want anarchism to rule, no government"
"Ok, everything goes as you say. Then what"
"Well I'll have all this land and I'll take all the tinned food and we'd do what we want"
"Cool, so I'm going to kill you, burn down your home and steal everything"
"Wait, what why ? You cant?"
"Sure I can, I'm bigger then you and know Martial arts."
"But"
"Theres no rules buddy, I can do what I want"

There's a difference between anarchy and anarchism.

Lots of self-identified anarchists don't understand this, true. But anarchism is no formal government, not no rules.

I'm sure there are technicalities that disqualify this example, but the Amish live in an approximation of anarchism.

[jetengine]

There's a difference between anarchy and anarchism.

Lots of self-identified anarchists don't understand this, true. But anarchism is no formal government, not no rules.

I'm sure there are technicalities that disqualify this example, but the Amish live in an approximation of anarchism.

Dont they have a council of Elders and follow religious rules ?