Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Is Joe Biden's campaign over before it starts? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=873262)

asahi 03-30-2019 04:31 PM

Is Joe Biden's campaign over before it starts?
 
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...didate-1244375

Pretty sure most reading this are already somewhat aware that Biden has apparently been called out by Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assembly woman, for alleged non-consensual kissing, touching.

It's also being reported elsewhere that Biden is known for being, ahem, a 'hands-on' kinda guy. Not that he always meant to violate women in each or any of these cases, but it's clear that he has at least made one woman feel uncomfortable with his past behavior and there may be more.

In the age of #metoo, how much trouble is Joe in? Can he address it head-on with contrition or will this simply add to his woes, which already started with his handling of the Anita Hill hearings?

What Exit? 03-30-2019 04:34 PM

In a world where the "pussy grabber" got elected how could these accusations be said to end Biden's bid? It might lead to his not running, but I doubt we're there yet.

dropzone 03-30-2019 04:41 PM

I love Joe, but he's getting a bit long in the tooth. Watched Beto's speech today and was impressed.

aldiboronti 03-30-2019 04:41 PM

I don't think it will make a substantial impact on any potential campaign nor should it. This isn't a sexual assault and quite honestly I don't understand her motive in making a big deal of this some 5 years later. Is she saying he's some kind of monster not fit to hold public office? For holding her shoulders and giving her a friendly peck on the back of her head? Inappropriate? Yes. But rendering him unsuitable as a candidate for President? Ridiculous.

asahi 03-30-2019 04:53 PM

I agree that, at least so far, it doesn't sound like he's a monster, but Al Franken was chased off for being a little grabby and not remembering incidents the way that women recalled them.

I seem to recall a quote once by LBJ - something about making the sonofabitch defend himself, and how the perception of weakness and being on the defensive can weaken a candidate. That's probably why Trump doesn't apologize, and that's why Ralph Northam refused to step down despite repeated attempts to do so.

Guinastasia 03-30-2019 04:56 PM

I'm not making excuses for the guy, but hasn't he always been known for this kind of thing?

TriPolar 03-30-2019 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aldiboronti (Post 21565639)
I don't think it will make a substantial impact on any potential campaign nor should it. This isn't a sexual assault and quite honestly I don't understand her motive in making a big deal of this some 5 years later. Is she saying he's some kind of monster not fit to hold public office? For holding her shoulders and giving her a friendly peck on the back of her head? Inappropriate? Yes. But rendering him unsuitable as a candidate for President? Ridiculous.

She could be promoting herself, but more likely she is trying to suck up to other candidates, possible already coordinating with one of them. That is how the game of dirty politics is played, first the surrogates try to stir up a storm, then candidates can pretend they had no choice but attack their opponents because it has become a major issue.

bobot 03-30-2019 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21565660)
I'm not making excuses for the guy, but hasn't he always been known for this kind of thing?

It sounds like he was at a rally to upport her, and he came up behind her and massaged her shoulders and kissed her on the back of the haed. Old school paternalistic "I got ya, baby."
Sorry Joe, you have to make good on this or you're out. Sure he didn't grab her by the pussy, but he's not a Republican either. If he doesn't come clean and make good, he's got to step out of the way. And that sucks, because he was the only Democrat that I had full confidence in with regards to kicking Trump's ass.

wolfpup 03-30-2019 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21565629)
In a world where the "pussy grabber" got elected how could these accusations be said to end Biden's bid?

In a world where a Democrat gets judged by one set of standards, and Trump gets judged by no standards at all.

DSeid 03-30-2019 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aldiboronti (Post 21565639)
I don't think it will make a substantial impact on any potential campaign nor should it. This isn't a sexual assault and quite honestly I don't understand her motive in making a big deal of this some 5 years later. Is she saying he's some kind of monster not fit to hold public office? For holding her shoulders and giving her a friendly peck on the back of her head? Inappropriate? Yes. But rendering him unsuitable as a candidate for President? Ridiculous.

Her stated point is
Quote:

the transgressions that society deems minor (or doesn’t even see as transgressions) often feel considerable to the person on the receiving end. That imbalance of power and attention is the whole point — and the whole problem.
And it's not an invalid point.

Biden has been a politician a long time and has always been a literal gladhandler, to all. The standards that call awareness to the fact that some who never voice any objection actually may find such touch to be offensive (rather than as a form of connection) are in comparison recent.

Touching after objection has been voiced would be disqualifying. Being unaware of what was in someone's head that was never shared and not realizing that some had those unvoiced discomforts? Likely not.

I get Ms. Flores' point. I also think that holding all past behavior to a standard that did not previously exist, that disqualifying based on things that at the time they occurred would not generally have been realized to be transgressive, would not only be silly, but would turn us into a circular firing squad.

bobot what in your mind would count as coming clean and making good. He very likely honestly does not remember the specifics of the interaction as she had said nothing and was likely very gracious to him for his support. That's the gist of his response by way of surrogate.
Quote:

Responding to the accusation, Biden spokesman Bill Russo said the vice president had been happy to support Flores and to speak on her behalf at the event.

“Neither then, nor in the years since, did he or the staff with him at the time have an inkling that Ms. Flores had been at any time uncomfortable, nor do they recall what she describes,” Russo said on Friday in a statement.

Biden believes Flores has every right to share her own recollection, Russo added, and that it is a positive change for U.S. society that she has the opportunity.
I think it is safe to assume that the kiss on the back of the head happened and that that sort of touch was just so normal politicking to him that asking him to remember it is unrealistic. Given that what response would satisfy? Serious question.

The Democratic side at least now declares such touch as off limits but a long time pol has functioned before now as well.

Fuzzy_wuzzy 03-30-2019 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21565629)
In a world where the "pussy grabber" got elected how could these accusations be said to end Biden's bid? It might lead to his not running, but I doubt we're there yet.

The Democratic Primaries are a totally different beast to the Republican Primaries or the General Election.

What I find interesting is that Biden has been known for this sort of behavior for years but only now, with the Democratic Primaries on the horizon, is he getting called out in the MSM. The MSM and his fellow Democratic politicians didn't give a damn about the issue when he was Vice President.

What Exit? 03-30-2019 06:18 PM

I'm not buying this as bid ending, I think most people and even most Democrats will not consider this disqualifying.

bobot 03-30-2019 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21565697)
...

bobot what in your mind would count as coming clean and making good. He very likely honestly does not remember the specifics of the interaction as she had said nothing and was likely very gracious to him for his support. ..

He can't leave her unsupported now. It may appear that she is lying about this. Is he cool with that? If he really doesn't remember, then he himself has to say publicly that: "Hell, that sounds like something I would have done. But I see why it wasn't cool, and I am aware of my actions as a result."
I could buy that. Then they have to get together and agree that it's done.

TriPolar 03-30-2019 06:39 PM

And it's already begun:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth Warren
So I don't know anything about this. But obviously if there's a problem, then Joe Biden needs to answer.

That is just so presidential, demanding answers to things she doesn't know anything about.

I couldn't care less about that old fart Biden, but this is the kind of thing that will get disgraced former President Trump re-elected.

bobot 03-30-2019 06:40 PM

Not Warren's comments, mind you, but Biden's lack of response.

CarnalK 03-30-2019 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriPolar (Post 21565736)
And it's already begun:



That is just so presidential, demanding answers to things she doesn't know anything about.

I couldn't care less about that old fart Biden, but this is the kind of thing that will get disgraced former President Trump re-elected.

Don't be a frigging ninny. She's at a press conference and they ask her "what about this Biden story??". What the hell else is she going to say? This isn't about Dems going dirty on each other - it's the Press trying to poke the bee hive.

TriPolar 03-30-2019 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobot (Post 21565741)
Not Warren's comments, mind you, but Biden's lack of response.

He did respond. He doesn't remember the incident nor deny it. Should he rend his clothes and tear his hair out to satisfy you?

bobot 03-30-2019 06:50 PM

No, read the thread. I've already commented on that.

TriPolar 03-30-2019 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobot (Post 21565757)
No, read the thread. I've already commented on that.

This is really simple, would you rather have Joe Biden become president or stick with disgraced former president Trump? Unless you want Trump re-elected there is nothing worth discussing here about Biden.

ITR champion 03-30-2019 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21565660)
I'm not making excuses for the guy, but hasn't he always been known for this kind of thing?

Yes. I knew that something of this sort was going to erupt eventually. In today's environment, how could it not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alidboronti
I don't think it will make a substantial impact on any potential campaign nor should it. This isn't a sexual assault and quite honestly I don't understand her motive in making a big deal of this some 5 years later. Is she saying he's some kind of monster not fit to hold public office? For holding her shoulders and giving her a friendly peck on the back of her head? Inappropriate? Yes. But rendering him unsuitable as a candidate for President? Ridiculous.

In principle that's my attitude too, and I'd bet a lot of Democrats feel that way privately. But who would say that on the record?

Have you been paying attention to how younger feminists and progressive activists treat these things? They view any unwanted touch as serious wrongdoing and an unwanted kiss might as well make the guy Bill Cosby. (See here for one of many examples: "'Sexual assault' and 'sexual violence' refer to a range of behaviors that are unwanted by the recipient,and include remarks about physical appearance, persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the recipient, threats of force to get someone to engage in sexual behavior, as well as unwanted touching".) So the way I see this playing out is Biden continues running and maybe 60% of Democrats are in the it-was-a-kiss-no-big-deal camp, while 40% view him as a sex predator. But that 40% are going to be quite noisy.

Of course the Obama administration pressured colleges and universities to adopt expansive definitions of "sexual assault" based on inflated statistics of the frequency of on-campus sex crimes, and among those who were very outspoken on the issue was Joe Biden. Karma's a bitch.

bobot 03-30-2019 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriPolar (Post 21565763)
This is really simple, would you rather have Joe Biden become president or stick with disgraced former president Trump? Unless you want Trump re-elected there is nothing worth discussing here about Biden.

You're funny.

DSeid 03-30-2019 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobot (Post 21565722)
He can't leave her unsupported now. It may appear that she is lying about this. Is he cool with that? If he really doesn't remember, then he himself has to say publicly that: "Hell, that sounds like something I would have done. But I see why it wasn't cool, and I am aware of my actions as a result."
I could buy that. Then they have to get together and agree that it's done.

But you understand that there will be more. His touchy feely style of politicking goes back many decades and even if 99 out of 100, hell 999 out of 1000 appreciated his little touches that leaves a substantial absolute number that still would say not. And males too! There's a picture in this article of him arm wrapped around nose into ear of a tight fisted clearly uncomfortable Strom Thurman. Some men find touch unwanted and objectionable as well.

I'm not sure what the best way to answer this is. If Ms. Flores had no point and this was completely #metoo gone too far then this could be a Sister Souljah moment, and many women voters would agree. But her point is valid: men (and to some degree women too) in positions of power have to be conscious that what they do not see as transgressive might be interpreted that way by those of lesser power (usually women) who will feel powerless to object, and even if the percent is small the power dynamic means that great caution must be exercised.

He is guilty of not knowing that before such became common knowledge. Not sure how he best articulates knowing it now.

In any case better to deal with this early ... or to prove himself unable to deal with it well enough.


OH eta - FWIW I think Booker or Harris would be stronger candidates and do not have Biden as number one choice. But I would not want this to be why he is not the choice.

bobot 03-30-2019 07:42 PM

NM

tomndebb 03-30-2019 09:39 PM

Moderating
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CarnalK (Post 21565749)
Don't be a frigging ninny.

And don't you be a hurler of insults outside The BBQ Pit.

No Warning on this occasion, but do not repeat this behavior.

[ /Moderating ]

HurricaneDitka 03-30-2019 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21565623)
... In the age of #metoo, how much trouble is Joe in? Can he address it head-on with contrition or will this simply add to his woes, which already started with his handling of the Anita Hill hearings?

I've been expecting this ever since he's been talked about as a potential presidential candidate. That someone finally came forward with a direct complaint is just about the least-surprising political scandal in recent years.

AK84 03-30-2019 11:12 PM

The Democrat seems damn determined to ensure that every candidate who can take on Trump is cut off at the legs before they can miun5ba challenge.
Someone upthread said Harris? Seriously? Trump will steamroll her. Booker too.

Try2B Comprehensive 03-30-2019 11:25 PM

I don't think Trump will be steamrolling anybody. He has a devoted base, yes, but he is like running a barn door sized target for reelection. The GOP has plenty of propaganda weapons and dirty tricks, but it is the Dems with an actual case to make.

Lwt

Try2B Comprehensive 03-30-2019 11:30 PM

I don't think Trump will be steamrolling anybody. He has a devoted base, yes, but he is like running a barn door sized target for reelection. The GOP has plenty of propaganda weapons and dirty tricks, but it is the Dems with an actual case to make.

Let's see how Biden handles this. If he can't overcome it in the Dem primary, where I don't expect candidates to completely savage each other to preserve their own chances, he might not overcome it in the general.

We have too see if he can fly "it wasn't that serious" and "I don't even remember it" along with his broader case. Me? I think he's be better than Trump. I haven't really seen him make his case yet though, and the first debate is months away. I go with "not over yet.

Eta sorry for double post

Lamoral 03-30-2019 11:31 PM

Having a case to make doesn't grant any inherent strength to their chances. All Trump needs to do is say "we've had four great years, now let's have four more great years."

I used to like Biden for the nomination but at this point I feel like we have better choices.

Try2B Comprehensive 03-30-2019 11:35 PM

We've had four years of coasting on Obama's legacy, with incessant lies, corruption and incompetence. The wall is stupid, the deficit is a trillion and the GOP is literally coming for your health care. And a hundred other things.

Trump sucks and can be beaten by lots of candidates IMHO.

BigT 03-30-2019 11:46 PM

It is indeed well known. Creepy Biden is a meme, and has been for a while. I've been giving that as my reason not to put my hope in him for a while now. We're in the #metoo era, and this shit is going to be disqualifying in a way it was never before.

I've been confused why his proponents haven't seen it as an issue. Warren's stuff is less of an issue in this climate.

SmartAleq 03-30-2019 11:53 PM

Hmmm. Watch through the videos in this thread and if you don't feel queasy afterward then I guess Unca Joe is your kinda guy.

AK84 03-31-2019 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive (Post 21566017)
I don't think Trump will be steamrolling anybody. He has a devoted base, yes, but he is like running a barn door sized target for reelection. The GOP has plenty of propaganda weapons and dirty tricks, but it is the Dems with an actual case to make.

The Bushes and Clinton’s had the two biggest and well connected political machines in the US. Trump beat both of them.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were considered the future of the GOP. Trump eviscerated both.
There is a reason he is President.
Maybe learn from past mistakes? The “Trump has a hilariously large amount of negatives” memes, did not work when he was a failed businessman running for office.
You think it will work when he has been President for 4 years?

septimus 03-31-2019 02:15 AM

I was unaware of this behavior and am shocked.

It's barely 2019, but I've already changed my recommendation more often than I change my shirt. :o I'm now withdrawing my Biden support and offering yet another top choice:
Cory Booker for President

racepug 03-31-2019 10:13 AM

Clearly there's a different standard for this sort of behavior between what is tolerated by D.J.T. and what is tolerated by pretty much everybody else. Sad and disgusting.

racepug 03-31-2019 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21566101)
I was unaware of this behavior and am shocked.

It's barely 2019, but I've already changed my recommendation more often than I change my shirt. :o I'm now withdrawing my Biden support and offering yet another top choice:
Cory Booker for President

I've had my eye on Cory Booker for some time. I'd vote for him - certainly before I'd EVER vote for the person who currently occupies the W.H.!

RTFirefly 03-31-2019 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21565697)
I get Ms. Flores' point. I also think that holding all past behavior to a standard that did not previously exist, that disqualifying based on things that at the time they occurred would not generally have been realized to be transgressive

Oh, bullshit. Touching and kissing strangers in such a manner was recognized as inappropriate 40 years ago, and it's still inappropriate today. The only thing that's changed is the power of women to call men out on it.

RTFirefly 03-31-2019 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racepug (Post 21566351)
Clearly there's a different standard for this sort of behavior between what is tolerated by D.J.T. and what is tolerated by pretty much everybody else. Sad and disgusting.

It's the difference between the standards Dems are willing to apply to one of their own, and the standards that Republicans are willing to apply to one of their own. That's all.

racepug 03-31-2019 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566364)
It's the difference between the standards Dems are willing to apply to one of their own, and the standards that Republicans are willing to apply to one of their own. That's all.

Yeah. That. Such as when the fine Al Franken was taken down by a concerted effort by Sean Flim-Flammity, et al, when what HE had done was NOTHING when compared to the horrible acts committed by you-know-whom.

DSeid 03-31-2019 10:27 AM

His statement today does not quite hit the ideal note, even if it is 100% accurate.
Quote:

... I may not recall these moments the same way, and I may be surprised at what I hear. But we have arrived at an important time when women feel they can and should relate their experiences, and men should pay attention. And I will. ...
What he still needs is an acknowledgement that listening to Ms. Flores has him considering that what he intends with his physical "expressions of affection, support and comfort" may not be what is always received, and that Ms Flores' point that those in positions of power may not realize that those who are uncomfortable with those physical expressions might be hesitant to speak up is valid.

Hold on the recitation of the record on woman's issues.

Go with the simple "It seems that something that I meant as an expression of support instead made Ms. Flores uncomfortable and I am deeply sorry for that. I had no idea and that is to no small degree on me. I am glad we are entering a phase in our society that people feel more free to speak up in any such circumstance and to let others know when such occurs. I promise to listen."

RTF bullshit to your bullshit. Politicians hugging strangers, reaching out to kiss babies, and such has been SOP forever. Nothing sexual or intended as a power put down about it.

Biden's awareness of when others don't like or want it is perhaps poorer than most. Again look at that picture I linked to of him with Strom Thurman. Clearly Strom is very unhappy with that physical touch by Joe, fists clenched. Look at the reactions of the others around them. Joe though seems clueless to it all.

RTFirefly 03-31-2019 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmartAleq (Post 21566036)
Hmmm. Watch through the videos in this thread and if you don't feel queasy afterward then I guess Unca Joe is your kinda guy.

I had to stop after just four or five of those clips. Seriously creepy shit going on there.

He's been able to do this stuff in situations where nobody was going to call him on it. Well, now he's getting called on it, and it's about freakin' time.

RTFirefly 03-31-2019 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566379)
RTF bullshit to your bullshit. Politicians hugging strangers, reaching out to kiss babies, and such has been SOP forever. Nothing sexual or intended as a power put down about it.

I'm sure that's been the case for most politicians. But something different is clearly going on with Joe.

IOW, bullshit to your bullshit of my bullshit. :p

Lamoral 03-31-2019 10:48 AM

Just in the past week I've seen Democrats arguing that:

Biden - the VP to one of the most successful and beloved presidents of my lifetime (I'm 32) - is an unacceptable candidate because he is too cozy with big corporations and he has touched women inappropriately.

Pete Buttegieg - an erudite, articulate young[er] man with phenomenal charisma and speaking presence - is unacceptable because he is too much of a centrist and he disagreed with Obama's pardoning of Chelsea Manning.

Sanders - an outright socialist with a groundswell of support and major name recognition - is either too old, too liberal, or too white to get elected.

I wonder what the Republicans are arguing about?

DSeid 03-31-2019 10:49 AM

Also please note that she posed for a picture with arms around each other, apparently fairly immediately before his kiss on the back of her head. (See the The Cut article.) This was not just coming up to a complete stranger from behind and kissing them on the back of the head. The level was already at a point that arms around each other was considered okay.

Again, he was at fault for not realizing that a kiss on the back of the head might be considered more intimate than arms around each other, and at fault for not being aware of the power dynamic that many men (and women) in positions of relative power have been clueless about and many still are.

But making that lack of realization something that decides who is or is not qualified to be our nominee would be beyond dumb.

There are lots of reasons of substance to prefer a Harris or a Booker over Biden. IMHO, this is not one of them. OTOH, how he handles it can be telling as to his ability to handle all the other crap that a campaign will throw at him. And so far he has not done as well as he could.

MortSahlFan 03-31-2019 10:53 AM

I don't think he should run, because the minute he does, I'm sure there will be MORE stuff that comes out. Even now, I keep seeing all these video compilations of Biden and his gaffes.

Personally, I think Bernie Sanders is the only one who has a chance to beat Trump. I heard Donnie Douche on MSNBC say he'd rather have Trump than a progressive.

I also notice the polls adding Biden, who isn't running, only to lower Sanders' number. If the DNC (or others) do some of the shady shit from 2016, you can guarantee Trump will be re-elected. The elections never seem to end.. I'm less interested in outcomes, and more interested in actual results, real change and reform.

Exapno Mapcase 03-31-2019 11:01 AM

The practical political issue is that giving Biden a pass on this plays straight into Trump's hands.

Since the Mueller report came out he's been screaming about liberal lies, and his base believes every word. If touchy Joe gets the nomination we'll hear every day about how the liberals faked outrage about his pussy grabbing (which never happened and was another lie) and everything they say about him is also a lie. And his base will believe it, because the left has made it true.

Obviously Trump will find a fault in every candidate or make one up if that works better. But handing him a hammer to beat us over the head with is even stupider a Democratic move than usual.

Biden has a huge number of faults that would normally disqualify a candidate, and besides that he's a 76-year-old white man at exactly the wrong time. Sorry, Joe, you gotta go.

bobot 03-31-2019 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamoral (Post 21566412)
...
I wonder what the Republicans are arguing about?

The eternal Republican argument: Which is funnier, grabbing women by their pussies or shipping kids and their mothers to two different places forever?

Lamoral 03-31-2019 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21566436)
If touchy Joe gets the nomination we'll hear every day about how the liberals faked outrage about his pussy grabbing (which never happened and was another lie) and everything they say about him is also a lie. And his base will believe it, because the left has made it true.

And all Joe needs to do is say, "Donald, you have conducted yourself with such unbelievable crudeness and vulgarity not only during your presidency and campaign, but over your entire career, that it doesn't remotely compare. Do you know what 'remotely' means?"

He should say that during a debate.

I don't know if Biden is gonna get the nomination or not. But if he does, he needs to not back down an inch.

I'm sure Trump would have some words to say in response to that statement. And as soon as he does, all Biden needs to do is cut him off, as Trump always does to everyone else - and say...as loudly as he can: "Pussy. Porn stars. Affairs. That's you, Donald."

The way people are discussing this upcoming election, it's like they learned NOTHING from the last time and still think it's 1992. Fuck that. The gloves are off.

What Exit? 03-31-2019 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racepug (Post 21566354)
I've had my eye on Cory Booker for some time. I'd vote for him - certainly before I'd EVER vote for the person who currently occupies the W.H.!

I would vote for Booker over Trump, but as someone from NJ, I would hardly recommend him. So far no Democrat I have seen comes close to bad enough where I wouldn't vote for them over Trump, so not a good measure.

Never loved Biden, if he has the best chance to take back states like Florida, Penn & others in the rust belt, I would support him, if this issues makes him slide in Florida polls, just tell me who is next that can beat Trump in Florida and take a few back in the rust belt.

DSeid 03-31-2019 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortSahlFan (Post 21566425)
... Personally, I think Bernie Sanders is the only one ...

Really? Who knew? :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21566436)
The practical political issue is that giving Biden a pass on this plays straight into Trump's hands. ... And his base will believe it, ...

His base will believe anything and everything he says and are not the concern. He has that third of the vote no matter what and they will come out no matter what.

There is lots between disqualification and getting a pass and much of that space will satisfy those whose minds are not made up no matter what. There are responses that demonstrate what he learns by listening.

Will his being someone who touched lots (women, men, children) when politicking as his style, sometimes with cluelessness as to when it makes others uncomfortable, be disqualifying to Obama-Trump voters? To Romney-Clinton ones? Will Democratic women stay home rather than vote for him when the alternative is Trump? Will younger voters stay home because of this? Will Black voters?

Trump's base gives him a pass on everything no matter what, no more and no less whoever the D side runs.

As far as how this impacts his chances to win the nom ... I think the overlap between those who would not vote for another old white fairly moderate guy for the nom and those who find this disqualifying is great. I don't think he loses that much support even if it lowers his favorables slightly.

Ulfreida 03-31-2019 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobot (Post 21565777)
You're funny.

I disagree, there is not and cannot be anything funny about unseating the worst human being ever to hold the presidency. Biden isn't my first choice but I can't get real excited about hair fluffing when toxic monstrosity rules the roost.

Exapno Mapcase 03-31-2019 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566471)
Will his being someone who touched lots (women, men, children) when politicking as his style, sometimes with cluelessness as to when it makes others uncomfortable, be disqualifying to Obama-Trump voters? To Romney-Clinton ones? Will Democratic women stay home rather than vote for him when the alternative is Trump? Will younger voters stay home because of this? Will Black voters?

Black voters stayed home in 2016. If they has turned out for Clinton as they did for Obama, Trump would have lost the midwestern states and the presidency.

Quote:

I don't think he loses that much support even if it lowers his favorables slightly.
Wishful thinking, IMO.

And this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamoral (Post 21566454)
And all Joe needs to do is say, "Donald, you have conducted yourself with such unbelievable crudeness and vulgarity not only during your presidency and campaign, but over your entire career, that it doesn't remotely compare. Do you know what 'remotely' means?"

He should say that during a debate.

I don't know if Biden is gonna get the nomination or not. But if he does, he needs to not back down an inch.

I'm sure Trump would have some words to say in response to that statement. And as soon as he does, all Biden needs to do is cut him off, as Trump always does to everyone else - and say...as loudly as he can: "Pussy. Porn stars. Affairs. That's you, Donald."

The way people are discussing this upcoming election, it's like they learned NOTHING from the last time and still think it's 1992. Fuck that. The gloves are off.

is delusional thinking. Trump beat 16 Republicans doing this. Why would it work better this time?

What Exit? 03-31-2019 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulfreida (Post 21566522)
I disagree, there is not and cannot be anything funny about unseating the worst human being ever to hold the presidency. Biden isn't my first choice but I can't get real excited about hair fluffing when toxic monstrosity rules the roost.

Look Trump is awful but he probably isn't worse than Andrew Jackson, who of course Trump publicly admires. Though I desperately don't want to see what he can do with an extra 4 years.

RTFirefly 03-31-2019 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21566457)
just tell me who is next that can beat Trump in Florida and take a few back in the rust belt.

If you think both sides will be as motivated as they were in 2018, I'd say anyone besides Tulsi Gabbard.

It's going to be a referendum on Trump, just like 2018. We won 2018, and I don't think we need Biden to win 2020.

ETA: Consequently, I think we Dems should nominate the candidate we'd most like to be the next President.

Lamoral 03-31-2019 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21566528)

And this


is delusional thinking. Trump beat 16 Republicans doing this. Why would it work better this time?

Because nobody else pushed back the last time.

What Exit? 03-31-2019 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566541)
If you think both sides will be as motivated as they were in 2018, I'd say anyone besides Tulsi Gabbard.

It's going to be a referendum on Trump, just like 2018. We won 2018, and I don't think we need Biden to win 2020.

ETA: Consequently, I think we Dems should nominate the candidate we'd most like to be the next President.

Careful, there is a lot of love for Warren by Dems that moderates and independents don't share and she could lose. I do think and hope nearly everyone else has a good chance, but I want to see that increased to great chance to beat Trump.

Bijou Drains 03-31-2019 12:37 PM

Why would a 2016 Trump voter not vote for him in 2020? What did he do or not do that would turn off some of his voters for 2020?

I know what happened in 2018 but it's much easier beating a congress member in the suburbs than beating Trump nationally. Remember all the seats Obama lost in 2010 (63 seats) and then he won in 2012.

DSeid 03-31-2019 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21566528)
Black voters stayed home in 2016. If they has turned out for Clinton as they did for Obama, Trump would have lost the midwestern states and the presidency. ...

Non sequitor.

Blacks turned out for Clinton as well as they did for any other non-Obama nominee.

And the question is specific: would being prone to overly touchy politicking negatively impact that group against Trump or against coming out?

kayT 03-31-2019 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive (Post 21566024)
We've had four years of coasting on Obama's legacy, with incessant lies, corruption and incompetence. The wall is stupid, the deficit is a trillion and the GOP is literally coming for your health care. And a hundred other things.

Trump sucks and can be beaten by lots of candidates IMHO.

Exactly the thinking that has the dems throwing names around instead of getting together to set a platform, choose a candidate, and get organized for a battle. If we don't get serious pretty damned soon we are looking at four more years of trump. Calling him names is not the answer any more than it was last time. Anyone who truly believes Warren or Biden or Sanders could win a national election against the incumbent is seriously kidding themselves. I don't see any hope that the dems are going to wake up any time soon, either.

DSeid 03-31-2019 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains (Post 21566559)
Why would a 2016 Trump voter not vote for him in 2020? What did he do or not do that would turn off some of his voters for 2020 ....

Some voted him as a vote for change and were willing to roll the dice.

Now they’ve seen the roll and many still want change.

GIGObuster 03-31-2019 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains (Post 21566559)
Why would a 2016 Trump voter not vote for him in 2020? What did he do or not do that would turn off some of his voters for 2020?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566588)
Some voted him as a vote for change and were willing to roll the dice.

Now they’ve seen the roll and many still want change.

There is that, and also one should take into consideration that a very significant number of voters expected that Trump was an even bigger liar, and that a lot of the promises that he made were lies too and that he would not really do the wall, go against the ACA, not be a racist prick, etc.

https://healthjournalism.org/blog/20...on-of-the-aca/
Quote:

Many people who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act voted for Donald Trump, even though he promised to get rid of it and has not been crystal clear about what he would put in its place.

Sarah Kliff of Vox traveled to Whitley County in Kentucky to find out why. In that county, the uninsured rate dropped by 60 percent (from 25 percent in 2013 to 10 percent now, according to Enroll America). Yet, 82 percent of them voted for Trump.

It turns out that they felt safe doing that because they didn’t believe Trump actually would take away their Obamacare.

Bijou Drains 03-31-2019 01:17 PM

I agree that he could have lost voters by getting rid of the ACA. So that "loss " for him could end up being a winning thing for him at the ballot box.

GIGObuster 03-31-2019 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains (Post 21566614)
I agree that he could have lost voters by getting rid of the ACA. So that "loss " for him could end up being a winning thing for him at the ballot box.

Seems that you missed the latest news. He just does not want to be seen a loser.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/182825...it-health-care
Quote:

During his presidential campaign, Trump told 60 Minutes, “I am going to take care of everybody.” On the campaign trail in 2018, he sounded similar. “We will always protect Americans with preexisting conditions,” he said at an event in Philadelphia just before the midterm elections.

But in office, Trump has attempted to implement an agenda that does the opposite. He’s backed legislation, regulations, and lawsuits that would make it harder for sick people to get health insurance, allow insurance companies to discriminate against patients with preexisting conditions, and kick millions of Americans off the Medicaid program.

This week, his Justice Department filed a legal brief arguing that a judge should find Obamacare unconstitutional — a decision that would turn the insurance markets back into the Wild West and eliminate Medicaid coverage for millions of Americans. By at least one estimate, a full repeal could cost 20 million Americans their health care coverage.
Quote:

At the time, the Trump administration wasn’t fully endorsing the challengers’ view. It didn’t agree, for example, that the Medicaid expansion — which covers millions of low-income Americans — would need to fall if the mandate fell. Instead, the Trump administration argued that the parts of Obamacare with the strongest policy connections to the mandate (the ban on preexisting conditions, the requirement to offer coverage to all shoppers) would need to be struck down as well.

What the Trump administration did yesterday goes much further. Now, the government is arguing that the court should find the entirety of Obamacare unconstitutional. This would mean repealing everything from the Medicaid expansion to the provision that allows young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until they turn 26.
Quote:

Americans are listening to the claims Trump makes about health care. They are hearing him say he wants “insurance for everyone.” They listen when he says he has a plan.

But everything I’ve seen covering the Obamacare repeal debate — from the bills on Capitol Hill to this lawsuit filing— tells me that Trump is not interested in protecting preexisting conditions. There isn’t a plan to create coverage for everybody, and there never will be.
Loser as in him not losing his promise to get rid of the ACA, that many people will end up as losers is not a problem for him.

Try2B Comprehensive 03-31-2019 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21566585)
Exactly the thinking that has the dems throwing names around instead of getting together to set a platform, choose a candidate, and get organized for a battle. If we don't get serious pretty damned soon we are looking at four more years of trump. Calling him names is not the answer any more than it was last time. Anyone who truly believes Warren or Biden or Sanders could win a national election against the incumbent is seriously kidding themselves. I don't see any hope that the dems are going to wake up any time soon, either.

I think a lot of Dems are not coming to grips with how bad a candidate Hillary was.

I don't know if Biden can win. I worry about Warren, too. She is a good white collar crime hawk and played an advisory role in the Obama administration, making her almost uniquely qualified to take credit for the positive economic conditions lately, but she may not be charismatic enough for this race. Have to wait and see.

Yes, Dems have to take this very seriously. Trump is so flawed that pointing it out can make the entire conversation about him instead of talking about the platform. But his record is not great once you get past conservative judges. I think people will notice that only the 1℅ are better off under Trump, and that the inhumanity of this administration will extend to more than just immigrants going forward, and that it isn't liberals in the crosshairs but the middle class and especially the poor.

I repeat: Trump sucks and I think a lot of candidates can beat him.

Exapno Mapcase 03-31-2019 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566581)
Blacks turned out for Clinton as well as they did for any other non-Obama nominee.

Then the obvious follow-up is that Democrats should not nominate another white candidate.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21565623)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...didate-1244375
....

In the age of #metoo, how much trouble is Joe in? Can he address it head-on with contrition or will this simply add to his woes, which already started with his handling of the Anita Hill hearings?

Pure 100% hit pieces because Joe is the leading Dem. And the Kremlin and Trump thanks you for spreading this "whataboutism"

Anita Hill hearings.....jesusfuckingchrist....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dont worry when Uncle Joe falls off the top off the polls, they will give you plenty of hit pieces on the next candidate.

DSeid 03-31-2019 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21566706)
Then the obvious follow-up is that Democrats should not nominate another white candidate.

Only if you think that the only factor that matters is optimizing Black turnout, and that any candidate who happens to be Black will optimize that turnout as well as Obama did.

I do not accept either premise.

That said my two favorites happen to be candidates of color and I think that such actually could help not only with Black turnout but with some white demographics, especially, but not only, the Obama-Trump voters.

Reason is that most white candidates will have to take very strong positions on issues of importance to many Black voters to earn support in the primaries and to demonstrate that they "get" the issues of systemic racism and its impacts, and those strong positions can turn off some voters who feel that it diminishes the importance of the problems they face. A Black candidate is going to be presumed by many Black voters to "get it" by virtue of lived experience and can spend more time and energy reaching out to other demographics without fear of losing Black support in the process.

Biden will likely do better than Clinton with both working class whites and with Black turnout, and he might win Obama-Trump voters back. But he won't reach Obama level Black turnout. I don't think Booker or Harris would reach that level either for that matter.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriPolar (Post 21565763)
This is really simple, would you rather have Joe Biden become president or stick with disgraced former president Trump? Unless you want Trump re-elected there is nothing worth discussing here about Biden.

Yep, they are spreading hit pieces as Biden is tops in the polls. Odd how this didnt come up when Biden was running for Veep twice.

bobot 03-31-2019 03:43 PM

NM again.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566360)
Oh, bullshit. Touching and kissing strangers in such a manner was recognized as inappropriate 40 years ago, and it's still inappropriate today. The only thing that's changed is the power of women to call men out on it.

They were not strangers. He was at a rally for her. Now sure, they were professional friends, not intimate, and sure it was old school, but he apologized.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566385)
I had to stop after just four or five of those clips. Seriously creepy shit going on there.
....

Those clips were obviously edited. ;)

The GOp is making up shit about Joe, and you are helping them.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:49 PM

[QUOTE=MortSahlFan;21566425]...
Personally, I think Bernie Sanders is the only one who has a chance to beat Trump..../[QUOTE]

As long as Biden is #1 in th epolls, and the GOp knows he is the toughest candidate to beat, you will see this sort of cheap attack.

But dont worry, if Bernie gets to #1, you will see him dragged thru the mud also.

Snowboarder Bo 03-31-2019 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566360)
Oh, bullshit. Touching and kissing strangers in such a manner was recognized as inappropriate 40 years ago, and it's still inappropriate today. The only thing that's changed is the power of women to call men out on it.

“Strangers”? Were she and he “strangers” when this alleged event occurred? :dubious:

DrDeth 03-31-2019 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21566895)
“Strangers”? Were she and he “strangers” when this alleged event occurred? :dubious:

Nope, she even put her arms around him on stage.

DSeid 03-31-2019 04:33 PM

Not every politically motivated attack is going to be GOP or Russian troll dirty pool DrDeth.

While Ms. Flores has not announced support for any candidate at this time she endorsed Sanders in 2016 and has been on the board of the Sanders affiliated political action organization Our Revolution.

I am not doubting that Ms Flores is recollecting an actual experience but the timing is of bringing up a kiss on the back of her head exactly now needs no GOP or Russian influence to explain. (And requires no organization or collusion with any campaign.)

But it is fair game and again, how Biden handles it is a reasonable test for how he might handle other challenges a leader in the polls is bound to have thrown at them.

Sherrerd 03-31-2019 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566913)
Not every politically motivated attack is going to be GOP or Russian troll dirty pool DrDeth.

That's right. To those whose priority is to save the globe from the corrupt clown who holds the nuclear codes, it's an urgent matter to look at the vulnerabilities of every potential candidate.

Biden has some very severe vulnerabilities---which the GOP will be happy to hold fire on until the moment Joe gets the nomination. Then we are going to hear plenty on these themes among others:
  • Biden has made three serious attempts at getting the Democratic nomination so far (in 1984, 1988, and 2008) and has been soundly rejected by Democrats each time.
  • Biden has a very shaky record on matters of import to black voters. He supported segregation on the basis that it promoted "black pride;" he drafted the 1994 crime bill that's resulted in disproportionate imprisonment of people of color;* he made that unfortunate remark about Obama being the first "clean" black candidate;** and that's not all. None of this is helpful toward bringing out the vote.
  • And yes, the 'putting his hands on women who haven't invited it' thing won't help either, nor will Biden's expressions of sadness that he really, really wanted to help Anita Hill but there was NOTHING he could do. He was Chairman of the committee conducting the 1991 hearings. He was in charge. Is his being ineffectual really a good selling point for his candidacy?



Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566913)
... how Biden handles it is a reasonable test for how he might handle other challenges a leader in the polls is bound to have thrown at them.

That's right. And so far Biden is falling short. His statements released so far have a whiff of 'I'm sorry if you were offended' about them, and that is not going to work.




* https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-...ial-bid-2019-2

** http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

Try2B Comprehensive 03-31-2019 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21566843)
Yep, they are spreading hit pieces as Biden is tops in the polls. Odd how this didnt come up when Biden was running for Veep twice.

You keep saying this, in multiple threads, but I don't buy it. For example, I have already seen multiple hit pieces against Tulsi Gabbard, and she is currently tied for dead last.

DrDeth, the hit pieces are because there is something to hit. At least, the authors think so. If it is spin or bs, just point out the substance of why. I think dismissing it altogether because "he is tops in the polls" is not helpful.

Heffalump and Roo 03-31-2019 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566913)
While Ms. Flores has not announced support for any candidate at this time she endorsed Sanders in 2016 and has been on the board of the Sanders affiliated political action organization Our Revolution.

She was also at a Beto O'Rourke event the day before this interview with her, according to Jake Tapper. (at minute 4:20)

asahi 03-31-2019 08:58 PM

If Biden were running for governor or senator in a moderate purpleish state, he would be able to overcome this. But he's running in a nationwide race in a liberal party that is now quite different than the one in which he competed for the nomination 10-11 years ago. I think Joe's going to tank like Hillary for many of the same reasons: he has a long career that people can pick apart, and progressives liked him more when he was Obama's assistant. They'll like him less now that he's running for the presidency, which doesn't mean that they really dislike him; they just aren't as thrilled with his running for president as he and some pundits are.

DSeid 03-31-2019 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 21566960)
... And so far Biden is falling short. ...

I'd give his response a B, maybe a B-. Not awful but given that this is one of the obvious attacks he was going to have to respond to (heck his being overly and sometimes uncomfortably familiar with his touch, again just look at that old picture of him with Strom Thurman and the looks on everyone else's faces, have been around for years) the fact that he seems ill-prepared with an A level response is very worrisome for what sort of candidate he'd be. Unless he thought he didn't need to be prepared until he was actually in the race ... which also does not speak well of his quality as a candidate.

If he thinks he can wing it with affability, humor, and authenticity alone, without being prepared ahead of time for that which is easy to predict, then maybe he's not the best choice to go into battle. Or really does not plan to.

So while I don't find his overly familiar touch habit to be disqualifying, his inadequate preparation for that attack is much closer to it. And makes me wonder if he really has to fire in his belly for it.

Who benefits most if Biden doesn't run?

Sanders moves into first based on early polling alone but I'd be betting after a bit Booker would pick up lots of his support. He also evokes nostalgia for Obama's terms and the party loyalists, Black voters, those most concerned about electability, and those who want a more center left candidate who had preferred Biden seem to me to be more likely picked up by him than by Harris or Klobuchar (let alone Sanders, Warren, or O'Rourke).

And pretty sure that Booker has already prepared responses to a wide variety of possible attacks that may come his way.

septimus 04-01-2019 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21566835)
... Anita Hill hearings.....jesusfuckingchrist....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I think every single Senator knew Anita Hill was telling the truth ... and many of them thought "What's the fuss? I flirted with two of my interns just yesterday!"

Should Chairman Biden have protected Ms. Hill's honor? Maybe, but he'd have come across as partisan.

I was already concerned about Biden's age, and the fact that he's not super-smart. I don't know if these fondling allegations would doom him; they're just the final straw for me. But expect to see some smoke before a real fire — is there any charge likely against Booker? (I'm not happy to give racist morons yet another reason to vote for Trump, but I'm going with Booker by process of elimination.)

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21566585)
Anyone who truly believes Warren or Biden or Sanders could win a national election against the incumbent is seriously kidding themselves.

If they cannot win then who can (in your opinion)?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567300)
So while I don't find his overly familiar touch habit to be disqualifying, his inadequate preparation for that attack is much closer to it.

In the #MeToo era I do not see how he expects to get past this.

Biden said, “Not once — never — did I believe I acted inappropriately." But that is the issue isn't it? He literally thinks his inappropriate actions are fine. What's the big deal?

You can see what he (probably) did to Lucy Flores in this picture of Stephanie Carter, wife of incoming Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter during Carter’s swearing-in ceremony in February 2015 (from a recent WaPo article about Biden's overly familiar style).

If you are a woman would you be comfortable with that? If you are a man would you be comfortable with that (either if he did that to you or he did that to your wife)? I doubt you would. I know I wouldn't. That Biden doesn't see it should be disqualifying.

I did not like Biden before this (and I am on record here about that) and am frankly happy if this torpedoes his candidacy.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21566851)
They were not strangers. He was at a rally for her. Now sure, they were professional friends, not intimate, and sure it was old school, but he apologized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21566895)
“Strangers”? Were she and he “strangers” when this alleged event occurred? :dubious:

I'm sorry, had they met before that day? If so, I retract what I said.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21566852)
Those clips were obviously edited. ;)

Please do give details. Saw one that showed the scene from a medium distance, then cut to replay the same scene with a close-up view of Biden and that one little girl. If you call that 'obviously edited,' well, it was obvious, but not in the sense of giving a false impression of anything.

If you've got something more, do tell.
Quote:

The GOp is making up shit about Joe, and you are helping them.
This is getting to be like, "if you do X, the terrorists have already won" from back in the day.

What Exit? 04-01-2019 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567588)
In the #MeToo era I do not see how he expects to get past this.

Biden said, “Not once — never — did I believe I acted inappropriately." But that is the issue isn't it? He literally thinks his inappropriate actions are fine. What's the big deal?

You can see what he (probably) did to Lucy Flores in this picture of Stephanie Carter, wife of incoming Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter during Carter’s swearing-in ceremony in February 2015 (from a recent WaPo article about Biden's overly familiar style).

If you are a woman would you be comfortable with that? If you are a man would you be comfortable with that (either if he did that to you or he did that to your wife)? I doubt you would. I know I wouldn't. That Biden doesn't see it should be disqualifying.

I did not like Biden before this (and I am on record here about that) and am frankly happy if this torpedoes his candidacy.

Of course, oddly enough, Stephanie Carter disagrees: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...carter-1246007

So maybe slow down on the witch hunt a little.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21567632)
Of course, oddly enough, Stephanie Carter disagrees: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...carter-1246007

So maybe slow down on the witch hunt a little.

Ok.

Then just watch these videos posted earlier in this thread: https://twitter.com/RAMRANTS/status/...387863552?s=19

Maybe they are all ok with it too. Or maybe they know better than to criticize the vice president of the United States who is above their husband/dad in the political hierarchy.

DSeid 04-01-2019 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567588)
...
You can see what he (probably) did to Lucy Flores in this picture of Stephanie Carter, wife of incoming Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter during Carter’s swearing-in ceremony in February 2015 (from a recent WaPo article about Biden's overly familiar style). ...

Funny thing about that oft reposted picture of Biden with Stephanie Carter: she says otherwise and is sick and tired of people speaking for her.
Quote:

Last night, I received a text from a friend letting me know that picture was once again all over Twitter in connection to Lucy Flores’ personal account of a 2014 encounter with Joe Biden. Let me state upfront that I don’t know her, but I absolutely support her right to speak her truth and she should be, like all women, believed. But her story is not mine. The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful. So, as the sole owner of my story, it is high time that I reclaim it — from strangers, Twitter, the pundits and the late-night hosts. ...

... By the time then-Vice President Biden had arrived, he could sense I was uncharacteristically nervous- and quickly gave me a hug. After the swearing in, as Ash was giving remarks, he leaned in to tell me “thank you for letting him do this” and kept his hands on my shoulders as a means of offering his support. But a still shot taken from a video — misleadingly extracted from what was a longer moment between close friends — sent out in a snarky tweet — came to be the lasting image of that day. ...
Biden likely has sometimes touched with good intent and misread without being aware of it. He should be own up to the discomfort that, in the context of the power dynamics, has caused. This was one of the more likely more common times that he read it exactly right.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567639)
Funny thing about that oft reposted picture of Biden with Stephanie Carter: she says otherwise and is sick and tired of people speaking for her.

Hypothetical:

Imagine you are standing on a city sidewalk and you see a random guy groping random women as they walk by.

Some women shrug it off and keep going. Other women feel they have been assaulted.

Did the guy only assault the women who were annoyed by the unwanted groping?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:02 AM

I think Lucy Flores' (and anyone else who cares to speak about their personal experiences with Joe Biden) statements should be considered with regards to Biden's candidacy. Her allegations strike me as credible. Biden's response hits a few good notes (not attacking Flores in any way or implying dishonesty and praising her for coming forward) and fails to hit some other notes it probably should have (Biden should make it clear that he now understands that physical affection is not always welcome, and he will be much more careful to not give hugs or other affection to strangers without clear signs that it would be welcome). I don't know if this will sink his candidacy; I will take this allegation and any others seriously and into account, and his response, when evaluating who to support.

I think random anonymous internet video cuts of Biden hugging or otherwise touching people who have not made any allegations against him, or otherwise provided their consent for images of their bodies to be used in political attack videos, should not be considered or cited as anything beyond random internet trash.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567653)
Hypothetical:

Imagine you are standing on a city sidewalk and you see a random guy groping random women as they walk by.

Some women shrug it off and keep going. Other women feel they have been assaulted.

Did the guy only assault the women who were annoyed by the unwanted groping?

According to Carter, they were close friends. Your hypothetical is not remotely comparable.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:15 AM

More from Flores: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/f...ual-harassment

Quote:

“For the record, I don’t believe that it was a bad intention. I’m not in any way suggesting that I felt sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. I felt invaded. I felt there was a violation of my personal space,” she said. “And it’s been dismissed as if it’s just Biden being Biden. Boys will be boys. No big deal. It is a big deal.”

“When I started to see pictures of him behaving in the same way he did with me and with other women, it was very triggering,” she said. “I felt so much empathy for them. I knew what they were going through. I had been in their shoes.”
I have occasionally felt my personal space was invaded by people who just assume that "friendly" touching is always welcome. This was probably not sexual assault (I'm talking about my experiences; Flores speaks for herself), but it's still a related issue in the sense that some people seem to have a sense of entitlement towards other people's bodies, even if it's not meant in any way sexually. Based on Flores' account, Biden may sometimes have this sense of entitlement to be physically affectionate with those who may not welcome this, and hopefully he will re-evaluate this feeling of entitlement and refrain from touching strangers who have not made it clear that it is welcome (like, say, opening their arms for a hug).

I think this is a reasonable and credible allegation and criticism by Flores.

kayT 04-01-2019 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567653)
Hypothetical:

Imagine you are standing on a city sidewalk and you see a random guy groping random women as they walk by.

Some women shrug it off and keep going. Other women feel they have been assaulted.

Did the guy only assault the women who were annoyed by the unwanted groping?

Isn't it supposed to be up to the woman to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Or are you guys going to decide for us. Again.

DSeid 04-01-2019 08:22 AM

I see ninja'ed but it highlights how easy it is to edit things to give an appearance of something when you have decades of clips to work with and people willing to say what others were thinking instead of actually listening to them.

When the people in those clips tell us how they felt about Biden's touch then we have some n to work with ... and after decades I am sure there is some n ... while it is people who come in with a pre-existing dislike for Biden telling us what the people thought, without asking them and without their consent to speak for them ... then, uh, no.

In this case the offense caused by a power dynamic upon Stephanie Carter was by people like Whack-a-Mole acting as a mob using her image misleadingly to serve their own purposes. Not sure about the others but before you use these people for your own ends maybe you should know?

I see that now Whack-a-Mole is trying to analogize every touch as "groping" ... well such is how it goes.


Hey let me play too!

Let's say that getting out of a crowded subway you occasionally tap people on the shoulder to get their attention when they don't move to let you out after you say excuse me. Most people turn and then move out the way, one feels you have groped them sexually, by touching them without permission.

Have you been groping all those people you tapped on the shoulder?

Also an analogy fail but a less poor fail than yours.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21567683)
Isn't it supposed to be up to the woman to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Or are you guys going to decide for us. Again.

There is a link above of Biden doing his thing repeatedly to other people (including young girls). Let's assume this is what he did to Flores since it seems a common thing for him to do.

Are men to be beholden to whatever women *think* is bad touching or is there some criteria men can use to know, before they touch, what constitutes a bad touch?

Frankly your world of "bad/good touch is whatever a given woman says it is" is a scary world to live in.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567710)
There is a link above of Biden doing his thing repeatedly to other people (including young girls).

As far as I can tell, these women and girls have not consented to having images of their bodies being touched used for political attacks. IMO it's inappropriate for you to continue to advocate that this consent of these women and girls, for the usage of these images, be violated. Flores has spoken out about this and it's entirely reasonable to use her statements to criticize/critique Biden's behavior. It's not reasonable or appropriate to use videos and images of people being touched, who may or may not have been close friends of Biden (or otherwise welcomed his affection), and have not consented to having their image used in this way, for political attacks.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21567722)
As far as I can tell, these women and girls have not consented to having images of their bodies being touched used for political attacks. IMO it's inappropriate for you to continue to advocate that this consent of these women and girls, for the usage of these images, be violated. Flores has spoken out about this and it's entirely reasonable to use her statements to criticize/critique Biden's behavior. It's not reasonable or appropriate to use videos and images of people being touched, who may or may not have been close friends of Biden (or otherwise welcomed his affection), and have not consented to having their image used in this way, for political attacks.

Huh? I assume you are trying to be clever about something here. You are not succeeding.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567725)
Huh? I assume you are trying to be clever about something here. You are not succeeding.

I'm being extremely serious. It's inappropriate to use an image of someone being affectionately touched, to attack someone else, unless that person has consented to their image being used in that way and/or spoken out about it publicly.

I'm saying that you have no idea if the girls and women in that video want their images to be used in this sort of attack (much less whether they are friends of Biden and/or welcomed his affection), and without this knowledge, it's inappropriate to use these images for this sort of attack.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:42 AM

It really is all about consent. Consent for touching/affection, for getting inside someone's "personal space", and consent for using images of the recipients of such behavior for political attacks. It isn't complicated. Flores has made a reasonable and credible allegation that Biden invaded her personal space. It's reasonable to discuss this allegation. It's not reasonable to use random internet videos of women and girls being touched if they haven't consented to their images being used in this way.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567698)
I see that now Whack-a-Mole is trying to analogize every touch as "groping" ... well such is how it goes.

I am not saying or suggesting Biden groped these women. You could tell because, right at the top of my post, I labelled it "Hypothetical". Hypothetical is not the same thing as an analogy. Something I am reasonably sure you know.

I was trying to use an unambiguous example of inappropriate touching to determine where the line is drawn. According to kayT above it is whatever a woman says it is since men cannot tell a woman what is good or bad touching.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21567737)
It really is all about consent.

In no case did these women give prior consent. So you are talking about giving consent after the act happened.

So, in your view, do men need to explicitly ask for consent before touching a woman?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567755)
In no case did these women give prior consent.

You have no way of knowing this. Consent for non-sexual touching like hugs is usually not verbal, especially between friends and family. You have no way to know if these are friends/family of Biden and/or if they consented to these instances of touch.

Further, you've provided no indication that these women and girls gave their consent for images of them being touched to be used in this way.

Quote:

So, in your view, do men need to explicitly ask for consent before touching a woman?
It depends on the circumstances. Human inter-personal relations can be complicated.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21567765)
You have no way of knowing this. Consent for non-sexual touching like hugs is usually not verbal, especially between friends and family. You have no way to know if these are friends/family of Biden and/or if they consented to these instances of touch.

Further, you've provided no indication that these women and girls gave their consent for images of them being touched to be used in this way.

Look at the videos. Do you really think Biden asked first? I do not know if Russell's Teapot is really there or not but I feel comfortable in saying it is not there.

And as for the images thing I really do not know what you are after. They were all in a very public situation with loads of cameras pointed at them. Seems to me the consent is implicit. If they did not want to be photographed/recorded they need to not walk on the stage where cameras are pointed. Not like it is not obvious to anyone there.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567792)
Looks at the videos. Do you really think Biden asked first? I do not know if Russell's Teapot is really there or not but I feel comfortable in saying it is not there.

Once again, consent for physical affection is not always verbal. Further, friends and family often hug and are affectionate with implied consent, and we don't know if these are close friends or family of Biden (as Stephanie Carter has said she is).

Quote:

And as for the images thing I really do not know what you are after. They were all in a very public situation with loads of cameras pointed at them. Seems to me the consent is implicit. If they did not want to be photographed/recorded they need to not walk on the stage where cameras are pointed. Not like it is not obvious to anyone there.
I've made it very clear what I'm after -- stop advocating the violation of the consent of these women and girls, when you have no idea if they've consented to you using their images in this specific way. Yes, they consented to having their photo or video taken, but that is not consent for that photo or video to be utilized in any and every possible way. Presumably you can think of some gross ways that you would agree with me that it would be inappropriate to utilize these images and videos for without their consent; this is another one -- still gross (because it's implying that you know how these women and girls felt and whether they consented or not), just gross in a different way. Stop being gross about these women and girls -- assuming consent in strangers is gross; so is assuming lack of consent. They can speak for themselves if they so choose.

Why not just use Flores' words to criticize Biden? That's certainly reasonable, and it doesn't violate anyone's consent. Reasonable, appropriate, and not gross in any way.

What Exit? 04-01-2019 09:15 AM

Maybe we should use the Pence rule and never be near women without our wife or at least a chaperone present?

Biden does need to at least publicly say, he understands that his actions in the past (the touching) was not always appreciated and he would ensure he stopped doing so.

BTW: Does this mean politicians can no longer kiss babies? Not the worst thing for either I would guess.

kayT 04-01-2019 09:24 AM

Maybe another rule would be that women who don't like a particular touch should say so right then, not five or ten years later. And the rest of the rule is that when the woman does say so, the result should be a ceasing of the action, not some sort of social or even physical reaction by the man. How about that?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21567835)
Maybe another rule would be that women who don't like a particular touch should say so right then, not five or ten years later. And the rest of the rule is that when the woman does say so, the result should be a ceasing of the action, not some sort of social or even physical reaction by the man. How about that?

This ignores the power dynamics that may be at play (e.g. your boss who can fire you if you speak up) or the social situation at the moment (e.g. you are on stage with a million cameras pointed at you and you fear making a fuss).

Your world sounds great but it is not the one we live in.

What Exit? 04-01-2019 09:28 AM

On the bright side, Sanders leads other Dems by double-digits among 18-29 year old Democrats. So maybe getting Biden out of the way is best anyway. It is 31% for Sanders to Biden's 20%.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-double-digits

Better link for Poll results: https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ic-voters-poll

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21567811)
Maybe we should use the Pence rule and never be near women without our wife or at least a chaperone present?

Who needs a chaperone? We have lots of examples of Biden being creepy publicly.

And the Pence Rule seems to imply that Pence can not control himself around women unless his wife is present to keep him in check.

I am over 50 and not once have I done something I'd need a wife to stop me from doing (indeed most of that time I was not married). This isn't to say I have not done stupid things but nothing #MeToo inappropriate. It is not hard at all. Really...I don't even think about it. I just don't do creepy shit. I am not sure why this is so difficult for some guys.

DSeid 04-01-2019 09:37 AM

Whack-a-Mole can you not appreciate that Stephanie Carter feels violated by people like you appropriating her image and making up a story to go with it, appropriating her right to her lived experience?

Passing along cherry picked images in no context of people, insinuating how they were were being mistreated, without their consent and without them claiming such, is violating these people and appropriating their lived experiences for propaganda purposes. It is no more illegal than a kiss on the back of the head without consent, but it is in my mind worse ethically, and much creepier.

As for the question "do men need to explicitly ask for consent before touching a woman?" More appropriately: do humans need to explicitly ask for consent before touching another human?

And I think even you'd agree with iiandyiiii here that it is context and situational dependent. Tapping another person on the shoulder on the subway after they do not hear your excuse me request to move so you get get out? Touching someone with your hip on their hip or even backside as you squeeze by? No verbal consent needed. A third grade teacher holding the hand of a student as they cross the street walking on a field trip? A friend seeing a friend in distress and putting a hand on should or holding their hand? A politician reaching to shake hands or kissing a baby shoved in their face? A doctor reaching out to touch someone who they just gave bad news to?

Consent is sometimes presumed by circumstance.

Intent does matter as well and this is one point where iiandyiiii and I disagree - friendly touch that turns out to be unwanted is not per se "entitlement." That word implies the intent is to get something selfishly and the intent with friendly touch is often meant to be giving something (comfort, support, whatever) not taking. Yes human communication is complicated and there are misunderstandings. With spoken communication and with nonverbal communication. Some people find being addressed by their first name to be nice, others find it presumptuous without explicit consent. Giving something that you thought would be received well that turns out to be something not wanted, is not being entitled; it is being mistaken.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567863)
Intent does matter as well and this is one point where iiandyiiii and I disagree - friendly touch that turns out to be unwanted is not per se "entitlement." That word implies the intent is to get something selfishly and the intent with friendly touch is often meant to be giving something (comfort, support, whatever) not taking. Yes human communication is complicated and there are misunderstandings. With spoken communication and with nonverbal communication. Some people find being addressed by their first name to be nice, others find it presumptuous without explicit consent. Giving something that you thought would be received well that turns out to be something not wanted, is not being entitled; it is being mistaken.

I'm not sure if we actually disagree here -- I'm saying that this feeling of entitlement can lead to someone being more likely to be mistaken in the manner you describe. In my personal experience, some people have this feeling of entitlement that their touch is always or usually welcome, and such folks are "mistaken" a lot more often than others without that sense of entitlement. Which isn't the end of the world, but reasonably worth criticizing.

DSeid 04-01-2019 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567858)
I am over 50 and not once have I done something I'd need a wife to stop me from doing (indeed most of that time I was not married). ...

Are you sure? Are you sure you've never done something that someone took offense at but did not tell you? You know how every person you ever touched in any context felt about it?

Somehow I suspect that if we had cameras on you 24/7 for decades we could find a whole host of stills and short clips that look bad, and maybe even a person or so who took offense at the way you squeezed by, or the look you took down her shirt as she bent down without even realizing you did it.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567863)
Whack-a-Mole can you not appreciate that Stephanie Carter feels violated by people like you appropriating her image and making up a story to go with it, appropriating her right to her lived experience?

No I don't. I mean, how she describes her feelings of the event is fine. That is totally up to her.

But she was in a very public situation with lots and lots of pictures being taken. She has zero expectation of privacy in that moment.

And, since it jibes very closely with what Flores described it is in the news. Carter can feel "violated" by this all she wants but I see no reason the picture should not be circulated in light of what is in the news. It has been out there for awhile...has Carter been working diligently to get it out of circulation? I'd bet she hasn't.

Quote:

Passing along cherry picked images in no context of people, insinuating how they were were being mistreated, without their consent and without them claiming such, is violating these people and appropriating their lived experiences for propaganda purposes. It is no more illegal than a kiss on the back of the head without consent, but it is in my mind worse ethically, and much creepier.

As for the question "do men need to explicitly ask for consent before touching a woman?" More appropriately: do humans need to explicitly ask for consent before touching another human?

And I think even you'd agree with iiandyiiii here that it is context and situational dependent. Tapping another person on the shoulder on the subway after they do not hear your excuse me request to move so you get get out? Touching someone with your hip on their hip or even backside as you squeeze by? No verbal consent needed. A third grade teacher holding the hand of a student as they cross the street walking on a field trip? A friend seeing a friend in distress and putting a hand on should or holding their hand? A politician reaching to shake hands or kissing a baby shoved in their face? A doctor reaching out to touch someone who they just gave bad news to?

Consent is sometimes presumed by circumstance.

Intent does matter as well and this is one point where iiandyiiii and I disagree - friendly touch that turns out to be unwanted is not per se "entitlement." That word implies the intent is to get something selfishly and the intent with friendly touch is often meant to be giving something (comfort, support, whatever) not taking. Yes human communication is complicated and there are misunderstandings. With spoken communication and with nonverbal communication. Some people find being addressed by their first name to be nice, others find it presumptuous without explicit consent. Giving something that you thought would be received well that turns out to be something not wanted, is not being entitled; it is being mistaken.
And this news highlights this problem.

We have Flores describing something that looks a lot like what we have many examples of Biden doing, including the picture of Biden and Carter.

Flores flags this as inappropriate.

Carter says it is fine.

Which is it? Who is right?

Is it your position that Biden (or any guy really) can be prosecuted for the same act only depending on how one person feels about that act?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567895)
No I don't. I mean, how she describes her feelings of the event is fine. That is totally up to her.

But she was in a very public situation with lots and lots of pictures being taken. She has zero expectation of privacy in that moment.

And, since it jibes very closely with what Flores described it is in the news. Carter can feel "violated" by this all she wants but I see no reason the picture should not be circulated in light of what is in the news. It has been out there for awhile...has Carter been working diligently to get it out of circulation? I'd bet she hasn't.



And this news highlights this problem.

We have Flores describing something that looks a lot like what we have many examples of Biden doing, including the picture of Biden and Carter.

Flores flags this as inappropriate.

Carter says it is fine.

Which is it? Who is right?

Is it your position that Biden (or any guy really) can be prosecuted for the same act only depending on how one person feels about that act?

Uggh. It's been explained why you're being creepy and gross, and you insist on continuing to be creepy and gross, about women and girls you've never met.

Blech. Unfortunately a very common sort of creepiness, but still creepy and gross.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567874)
Are you sure? Are you sure you've never done something that someone took offense at but did not tell you? You know how every person you ever touched in any context felt about it?

Somehow I suspect that if we had cameras on you 24/7 for decades we could find a whole host of stills and short clips that look bad, and maybe even a person or so who took offense at the way you squeezed by, or the look you took down her shirt as she bent down without even realizing you did it.

I am sure.

You'd see plenty of dumb stuff but never inappropriately touching people.

And we have lots of examples of Biden doing this. It is not a one-time oopsie.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21567900)
Uggh. It's been explained why you're being creepy and gross, and you insist on continuing to be creepy and gross, about women and girls you've never met.

Blech. Unfortunately a very common sort of creepiness, but still creepy and gross.

Once again...huh?

Do you have to work at being oblique?

septimus 04-01-2019 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21567844)
On the bright side, Sanders leads other Dems by double-digits among 18-29 year old Democrats. So maybe getting Biden out of the way is best anyway. It is 31% for Sanders to Biden's 20%. ...

:confused: Bright side? :confused: The last thing we want is enthusiasm for the aging socialist. The reason he did so well in 2016 was low-turnout caucuses. Caucuses test strength among informed politically-active Democrats. This is a group that will be irrelevant in the election of November 2020. It is uninformed politically-confused "independents" who will choose our next President. Is an intelligent aging socialist who they want?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21567962)
:confused: Bright side? :confused: The last thing we want is enthusiasm for the aging socialist.

Good thing then that he is not a Socialist.

septimus 04-01-2019 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567974)
Good thing then that he is not a Socialist.

What's that? A Fact™? Everyone's entitled to their own Facts™ these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/5-things-bernie-sanders-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-socialism

Sanders ... is a self-described socialist who has been peddling destructive collectivist policies for decades—everything from single-payer health care to punitive taxes and radical climate change agreements. Make no mistake about it, Sanders, who honeymooned in Soviet Russia, wants to fundamentally alter American society and impose a socialist agenda on tens of millions of Americans who want the federal government to stay out of their homes and businesses.


DSeid 04-01-2019 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567901)
I am sure.

You'd see plenty of dumb stuff but never inappropriately touching people.

Right off the Biden statement. Use the same writer?

Really, that's what they all say. Especially the most clueless, they are very "sure."

And you've never done or said anything racist (without even realizing it) either, right? It's something others do.

FWIW I am confident that I have been clueless enough that I have offended without realizing it, by touch and by word, and would take someone at their word that I had. No pictures and no one telling me such but still pretty sure. I can say my conscious intent has rarely (not never) been to offend or to make uncomfortable, but still such may be felt without my intent to do so and I strongly suspect has. Actually was told once! A nurse interpreted me as shoving her as I went by quickly to a patient as all heck was breaking loose and complained. Was not my intent but she felt that way as her lived reality. Was it assault? I apologized.


Having your picture taken is one thing, having it used as propaganda with a made up story is something else. Doing the latter is being a creep.

Agreed again with iiandyiiii - blech.

What Exit? 04-01-2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567974)
Good thing then that he is not a Socialist.

He pretty much is a socialist, he doesn't deny it. He just doesn't mean the same thing by it that Fox News does.
Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21567962)
:confused: Bright side? :confused: The last thing we want is enthusiasm for the aging socialist. The reason he did so well in 2016 was low-turnout caucuses. Caucuses test strength among informed politically-active Democrats. This is a group that will be irrelevant in the election of November 2020. It is uninformed politically-confused "independents" who will choose our next President. Is an intelligent aging socialist who they want?

Sure, whatever, you're clearly the expert on beating Trump. Oh wait, College tuition is important to a lot of those independents and especially to younger voters. Oh wait, he can wrap himself in Green pretty well on Climate Change and related issues. Oh Wait, maybe coming off as the cranky but well informed uncle isn't the worst thing.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21567990)
What's that? A Fact™? Everyone's entitled to their own Facts™ these days.

You can look at what he calls himself or look at his policy proposals.

Socialism means the government seizing the means of production. I may have missed it but I do not recall Sanders advocating that.

Sanders is imprecise and using shorthand. Look at his policy proposals and get back to us.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21568004)
Right off the Biden statement. Use the same writer?

Really, that's what they all say. Especially the most clueless, they are very "sure."

You can Google Biden creepy and Obama creepy. Biden has loads of pics of him being creepy with women. Obama creepy are weird Photoshop pics.

So yeah...I am sure. Obama is sure. Biden's writer is spinning.

And FTR I know I have said racist shit before. I also know I have not inappropriately touched a girl/woman.

TriPolar 04-01-2019 10:46 AM

Okey dokey, Biden's a pervert, Bernie's a commie. Klobuchar is mean to her staff, we all know you can judge a person best by how they treat those beneath them. I hear Buttigieg is a Hillary hater, so he's probably a Bernie Bros. Warren pretended to be native American get into school, sort of like Aunt Becky paying to get her kids in. Beto is a bad father who doesn't care about his kids and thinks that's funny. Kamala Harris dissed her father and hates transgender inmates.

Anybody else need to step down because they aren't perfect in your eyes?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568029)
I also know I have not inappropriately touched a girl/woman.

When thinking about this I recalled one "maybe" example when I did an inappropriate touch.

I was leaving the gay pride parade in Chicago and taking the elevated home (above-ground subway). The cars were packed with people Japanese style.

As it happened my upper arm was nested firmly between a buxom woman's breasts.

I looked at her, she looked back and said that ordinarily such a thing would piss her off. She said it with a smile. It was inadvertent and unavoidable and she totally understood it.

But what if she had been pissed? Would I be guilty?

TriPolar 04-01-2019 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568076)

But what if she had been pissed? Would I be guilty?

No. You did nothing intentional. Nobody can expect to be untouched in a packed subway car.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567907)
Once again...huh?

Do you have to work at being oblique?

I've tried... but here goes again, as simply as I can: those women and girls consented to having photos and video taken, but not to those photos and videos being utilized to attack a politican, and not for you to insist that they were mistreated when you have no idea whether or not they consented, and whether or not they consider Biden a close friend or family.

Your assumption that they are fine with you using those images and videos for these political attacks (or even worse, if you don't care if they're fine with it), and your assumption that these women and girls did not consent to the actions in those photos and videos, is creepy and gross.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568118)
I've tried... but here goes again, as simply as I can: those women and girls consented to having photos and video taken, but not to those photos and videos being utilized to attack a politican, and not for you to insist that they were mistreated when you have no idea whether or not they consented, and whether or not they consider Biden a close friend or family.

Your assumption that they are fine with you using those images and videos for these political attacks (or even worse, if you don't care if they're fine with it), and your assumption that these women and girls did not consent to the actions in those photos and videos, is creepy and gross.

Whoa! So you're saying that even after photos and videos of someone are widely available on the Web, and that person has never protested that availability or tried to restrain it, that person still should have the right to be consulted on each individual use of those photos.

That makes no sense, and would be impossible even if it did.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21568141)
Whoa! So you're saying that even after photos and videos of someone are widely available on the Web, and that person has never protested that availability or tried to restrain it, that person still should have the right to be consulted on each individual use of those photos.



That makes no sense, and would be impossible even if it did.

When it comes to images and video purporting to be inappropriate intimate physical contact, absolutely.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568163)
When it comes to images and video purporting to be inappropriate intimate physical contact, absolutely.

Many, if not most or even all, of those pictures were taken in a political context. These are not pics taken at home in a private moment. These are indisputably public pictures.

A woman described a particular incident with the former Vice President of the United States. So, other pictures of him, in public, doing what she described are relevant and fair use.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568174)
Many, if not most or even all, of those pictures were taken in a political context. These are not pics taken at home in a private moment. These are indisputably public pictures.

Of course they're public. It's still wrong to use public pictures of women and girls being touched and utilize them publicly in a way that implies something about their consent to that touch, when they haven't spoken out or given you permission. That's what you're doing - you're implying that you know something about the consent of those women and girls. And that's wrong, creepy and gross.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568163)
When it comes to images and video purporting to be inappropriate intimate physical contact, absolutely.

They were present for the contact in question. You'd think that if they didn't want it to be shared on account of that, they'd have said something relatively soon afterwards.

Besides, I think this argument relies on a stretch of the word 'intimate.' We're talking G-rated contact here - if someone filmed me putting my hands on my wife in that way in public, nobody would think twice of it. The problem is that Biden's being inappropriately touchy-feely with people who, by and large, he barely knows.

It's inappropriate in the absence of any close relationship, not inappropriate per se.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21568189)
The problem is that Biden's being inappropriately touchy-feely with people who, by and large, he barely knows.

With Flores, yes. Implying this is true about other women who haven't spoken out is wrong, and it's creepy and gross because you're making assumptions about the consent of a stranger (not to mention whether or not they consider Biden a friend or family).

Chimera 04-01-2019 11:52 AM

On one hand, you have the Republican candidates and their actions.

On the other hand, you have people expecting Democrats to be perfect and blameless.

Yeah, fuck that nonsense. Especially when it comes from Republicans. If you support Donald Trump, you are unqualified to criticize anyone else for their imperfections.


I'm not willing to disqualify every damned Democrat for being imperfect.

And I'm no longer willing to listen to Democrats who insist that every Democrat be perfect. Fuck off already (generic you, no one here) with the extremist tone policing of your own damned side. If you're willing to see horrible people on the other side elected because our person made a few mistakes or isn't spotless, then you were never on our side.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21568199)
On one hand, you have the Republican candidates and their actions.

On the other hand, you have people expecting Democrats to be perfect and blameless.

Yeah, fuck that nonsense. Especially when it comes from Republicans. If you support Donald Trump, you are unqualified to criticize anyone else for their imperfections.


I'm not willing to disqualify every damned Democrat for being imperfect.

And I'm no longer willing to listen to Democrats who insist that every Democrat be perfect. Fuck off already (generic you, no one here) with the extremist tone policing of your own damned side. If you're willing to see horrible people on the other side elected because our person made a few mistakes or isn't spotless, then you were never on our side.

If this was a Biden one-time oops I am with you.

But when we can see it repeated over and over this is not punishing someone for not being perfect. It is punishing someone for being a consistent creep.

WillFarnaby 04-01-2019 11:56 AM

They should at least blur the faces of the youngest possible victims. It is quite creepy.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568195)
With Flores, yes. Implying this is true about other women who haven't spoken out is wrong, and it's creepy and gross because you're making assumptions about the consent of a stranger (not to mention whether or not they consider Biden a friend or family).

Well, Flores made a claim that looks like loads of other pics of Biden doing the same thing. Those pictures are relevant to show this is not a one-time oops from Biden but rather shows a pattern of similar behavior.

Maybe you are right and every other female in these pics welcomed the contact and Flores is the one outlier.

Would you make a substantial bet on it?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568217)
Maybe you are right and every other female in these pics welcomed the contact and Flores is the one outlier.

It just occurred to me...does Biden do this to men? Does he grip their shoulders, whisper in their ear and kiss them on the head? If he did that would be an indication that he only does this as a habit to anyone and would suggest a less creepy motive (even if it is still creepy).

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568217)
Well, Flores made a claim that looks like loads of other pics of Biden doing the same thing. Those pictures are relevant to show this is not a one-time oops from Biden but rather shows a pattern of similar behavior.

Maybe you are right and every other female in these pics welcomed the contact and Flores is the one outlier.

Would you make a substantial bet on it?

Uggh. It's just revolting the way your posts in this thread have continuously and blatantly disregarded the personhood and individuality of Stephanie Carter (you didn't even back off after she explicitly said that Biden was her close friend offering comfort!) and these other women and girls. I haven't made any other claims aside from criticism of Biden for the conduct Flores alleges and his response. I've made no claims at all about any of these women and girls, aside from Flores and Carter, both of whom have made their feelings clear.

Using women and girls without their consent is wrong. Your usage of Stephanie Carter and these other women and girls without their consent (and explicitly opposite to the account of Carter, even after you saw her statement) is wrong and, IMO, disgusting.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568279)
Uggh. It's just revolting the way your posts in this thread have continuously and blatantly disregarded the personhood and individuality of Stephanie Carter (you didn't even back off after she explicitly said that Biden was her close friend offering comfort!) and these other women and girls. I haven't made any other claims aside from criticism of Biden for the conduct Flores alleges and his response. I've made no claims at all about any of these women and girls, aside from Flores and Carter, both of whom have made their feelings clear.

Using women and girls without their consent is wrong. Your usage of Stephanie Carter and these other women and girls without their consent (and explicitly opposite to the account of Carter, even after you saw her statement) is wrong and, IMO, disgusting.

You didn't answer my question.

Also, you ignoring Flores being bothered by Biden's behavior is disgusting.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568284)
You didn't answer my question.

Your question contained a false premise.

Quote:

Also, you ignoring Flores being bothered by Biden's behavior is disgusting.
This also contains a false premise. Biden's disregard for Flores' personal space was indeed disgusting.

DSeid 04-01-2019 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568237)
It just occurred to me...does Biden do this to men? Does he grip their shoulders, whisper in their ear and kiss them on the head? If he did that would be an indication that he only does this as a habit to anyone and would suggest a less creepy motive (even if it is still creepy).

Again, (linked to before and referred to again after that) yes. https://harpers.org/archive/2019/03/joe-biden-record/

4 th picture in the (very unfavorable) article with a very clearly not consenting Storm Thurman.

The faces of the other pols in reaction tell their own story.

Again I suspect his touchy style ... rubs some the wrong way. And connects him well with others. It’s a particular style of politicking that is likely used more selectively than he has used it. But the intent is clearly not to offend or to intrude. I’d bet a solid majority of the time it serves to connect. But even a small minority is significant.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568290)
Your question contained a false premise.

What "false premise"?

Quote:

This also contains a false premise. Biden's disregard for Flores' personal space was indeed disgusting.
Do you think this should stop Biden from running for president?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21568298)
Again, (linked to before and referred to again after that) yes. https://harpers.org/archive/2019/03/joe-biden-record/

4 th picture in the (very unfavorable) article with a very clearly not consenting Storm Thurman.

Are you seriously suggesting this is the same thing as what Flores described?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568319)
What "false premise"?

You said "Maybe you are right and..." and then the false premise. I haven't characterized, in any way, any touching/affection behavior by Biden aside from the behavior that Flores and Carter have publicly spoken about. I won't assume anything at all about the consent of women and girls who haven't publicly spoken about it.

Quote:

Do you think this should stop Biden from running for president?
If I were him, I wouldn't run, and this makes me substantially less likely to support him against the other Democratic candidates.

SmartAleq 04-01-2019 12:49 PM

Quick--what's Joe looking at? And would you feel comfortable hanging this pic in your living room if that was your daughter?

Just in case anyone thought it was age creeping up on him that made his judgment go wonky.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21568298)
Again I suspect his touchy style ... rubs some the wrong way. And connects him well with others. It’s a particular style of politicking that is likely used more selectively than he has used it. But the intent is clearly not to offend or to intrude. I’d bet a solid majority of the time it serves to connect. But even a small minority is significant.

I honestly do not think Biden is a perv. I think his hands-on, touchy thing is "innocent" inasmuch as, I think, he is just trying to be amiable.

But he doesn't do it to men and I think this is at the base of #MeToo. Men just do things to women that are sexist. They don't see it that way but they treat the "little ladies" differently. Biden is an old guy. He is of a different era. In the 1950's this would be charming behavior. In 2020 not so much.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568328)
You said "Maybe you are right and..." and then the false premise. I haven't characterized, in any way, any touching/affection behavior by Biden aside from the behavior that Flores and Carter have publicly spoken about. I won't assume anything at all about the consent of women and girls who haven't publicly spoken about it.

My question was what you would be willing to make a substantial bet on. No premise at all. A simple binary choice.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568345)
My question was what you would be willing to make a substantial bet on. No premise at all. A simple binary choice.

I wouldn't make any such bet, and I find the idea of making a bet about the consent of women and girls who are personally unknown to me to be rather repugnant.

DSeid 04-01-2019 12:56 PM

Both were intruding on someone else’s personal space with touch in a way that made the person uncomfortable with apparent lack of awareness that he was causing the other person discomfort.

The difference is that Strom’s discomfort is being made very clear with fist clenched and he still doesn’t notice. Everyone around seems to be noticing! Ms Flores does not describe any reaction she showed that communicated discomfort so much.


Yes he is hands on to men too.

Chimera 04-01-2019 01:08 PM

Whether or not it is a valid issue for discussion, what is bothering me the most right now is that Bernie Sanders and the Bernie Bros seem to have flipped into full blown 'burn down every Democratic candidate to clear the path for Bernie' mode, including insulting the supporters of other candidates. I don't like it, I don't appreciate it and it isn't going to make me vote for Bernie.

By the way, is he still using the same campaign staff with the Russian ties?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568352)
I wouldn't make any such bet, and I find the idea of making a bet about the consent of women and girls who are personally unknown to me to be rather repugnant.

What is "repugnant" about it?

We have a series of photos of Biden getting handsy with women and girls.

You posit it is wrong to assume how the women/girls felt about that contact.

Fine.

So the question is, if you had to bet, which way do you think the majority of women would feel about it?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568386)
What is "repugnant" about it?

We have a series of photos of Biden getting handsy with women and girls.

You posit it is wrong to assume how the women/girls felt about that contact.

Fine.

So the question is, if you had to bet, which way do you think the majority of women would feel about it?

I decline to play this revolting game, because it is wrong to assume how the women/girls felt about that contact.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568395)
I decline to play this revolting game, because it is wrong to assume how the women/girls felt about that contact.

Read: "I am cornered and can't find a way out of what I argued for so I will feign indignance."

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568401)
Read: "I am cornered and can't find a way out of what I argued for so I will feign indignance."

Or maybe you could actually read my words instead of accusing me of lying. Is it really that impossible to you that I might be honestly representing my views?

Chimera 04-01-2019 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568401)
Read: "I am cornered and can't find a way out of what I argued for so I will feign indignance."

:smack:

"I have the power to demand that you answer my very specific questions about everything to my exacting requirements. Failure means you lose."

:rolleyes:

Good luck with that.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21568422)
:smack:

"I have the power to demand that you answer my very specific questions about everything to my exacting requirements. Failure means you lose."

:rolleyes:

Good luck with that.

He/she does not have to answer but a dodge is a dodge.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568424)
He/she does not have to answer but a dodge is a dodge.

...or maybe I'm honestly representing my views. It can be tough to accept that someone is honestly but very strongly disagreeing with you, but doing so can lead to greater understanding. Why not try it?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568412)
Or maybe you could actually read my words instead of accusing me of lying. Is it really that impossible to you that I might be honestly representing my views?

You are the one who used charged language like "revolting".

Maybe you are really revolted. If so I submit you are too easily triggered.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568431)
You are the one who used charged language like "revolting".

Maybe you are really revolted. If so I submit you are too easily triggered.

Our overall society is revolting in the way women/girls are treated. You may have missed it, but I've been hammering this issue on this board for years. And how it's gotten worse, in some ways, in the last few years. This discussion is an extremely minor, but still real, example of this, IMO. I don't have any reason to think that you're a bad person, but by your posts, I think you've succumbed, to some small but still real way, to part of the overal societal disregard for the personhood of women and girls. I know that I have in the past as well. That's not going to stop me from pointing it out when I see it -- and this could be an opportunity for you to try and see something that you might be able to improve about yourself. I'm certainly far from perfect, and I hope others will call out inadvertent bigotry in my posts, if they see it. And I'm going to do it for you and everyone else I see that make this sort of mistake, both to highlight how ubiquitous it is, and to help people have the chance to improve themselves.

It's always possible that I'm wrong about this and any other issue, and I welcome the opportunity to probe and challenge my own arguments, assumptions, and beliefs. But so far, I've been very troubled by your blatant disregard for the personhood and individual full humanity of women like Stephanie Carter, as well as the other women and girls in the videos/images cited.

This isn't the end of the world, and it doesn't make you (or Biden!) a monster, but I'm still going to call it out when and how I see it.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568457)
Our overall society is revolting in the way women/girls are treated. You may have missed it, but I've been hammering this issue on this board for years. And how it's gotten worse, in some ways, in the last few years. This discussion is an extremely minor, but still real, example of this, IMO. I don't have any reason to think that you're a bad person, but by your posts, I think you've succumbed, to some small but still real way, to part of the overal societal disregard for the personhood of women and girls. I know that I have in the past as well. That's not going to stop me from pointing it out when I see it -- and this could be an opportunity for you to try and see something that you might be able to improve about yourself. I'm certainly far from perfect, and I hope others will call out inadvertent bigotry in my posts, if they see it. And I'm going to do it for you and everyone else I see that make this sort of mistake, both to highlight how ubiquitous it is, and to help people have the chance to improve themselves.

It's always possible that I'm wrong about this and any other issue, and I welcome the opportunity to probe and challenge my own arguments, assumptions, and beliefs. But so far, I've been very troubled by your blatant disregard for the personhood and individual full humanity of women like Stephanie Carter, as well as the other women and girls in the videos/images cited.

This isn't the end of the world, and it doesn't make you (or Biden!) a monster, but I'm still going to call it out when and how I see it.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

In your view, regarding Biden, whose account do you accept? Flores or Carter?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568476)
You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

In your view, regarding Biden, whose account do you accept? Flores or Carter?

I accept both accounts, and they don't conflict in any way at all.

I can't tell what you're actually trying to respond to in my posts.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568483)
I accept both accounts, and they don't conflict in any way at all.

I can't tell what you're actually trying to respond to in my posts.

So, if you put your hands on women's shoulders (who are not well known or intimate with you), lean in to whisper in their ear and kiss them on the head that is ok till someone complains?

And when someone complains then what happens?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568489)
So, if you put your hand on women's shoulders (who is not well known or intimate with you), lean in to whisper in their ear and kiss them on the head that is ok till someone complains?

And when someone complains then what happens?

This has nothing to do with what I've posted. I can't tell what you're disputing here that I've actually said.

Which specific words are you disagreeing with here?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568494)
This has nothing to do with what I've posted. I can't tell what you're disputing here that I've actually said.

Which specific words are you disagreeing with here?

You have been on about how I dare to assume someone I do not know feels about Biden being overly familiar with them.

So I am exploring how that plays out in your head because you seem to be trying to have it both ways. Flores is right and Carter is right so Biden should and should not be judged.

Which is just weird...

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568515)
You have been on about how I dare to assume someone I do not know feels about Biden being overly familiar with them.

So I am exploring how that plays out in your head because you seem to be trying to have it both ways. Flores is right and Carter is right so Biden should and should not be judged.

Which is just weird...

I don't understand how it's "weird" or otherwise difficult to understand that it's reasonable to criticize Biden for the behavior that Flores describes, but not reasonable to criticize Biden for being affectionate with a close friend (Carter), and not reasonable to characterize in any way the appropriateness of the contact for women and girls who have chosen not to speak out publicly.

It's not okay to violate someone's personal space (without consent, obviously). It is okay to be affectionate with a close friend if that's the kind of relationship you have (i.e. that hugs and affection are welcome, and this has been made clear over the course of a long friendship). It's not okay to presume you have any knowledge about the consent of a bunch of women and girls who have not chosen to speak out about their experiences.

What's "weird" about that?

DrDeth 04-01-2019 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567637)
Ok.

Then just watch these videos posted earlier in this thread: https://twitter.com/RAMRANTS/status/...387863552?s=19

Maybe they are all ok with it too. Or maybe they know better than to criticize the vice president of the United States who is above their husband/dad in the political hierarchy.

Edited vids. Crap.

DrDeth 04-01-2019 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21567844)
On the bright side, Sanders leads other Dems by double-digits among 18-29 year old Democrats. So maybe getting Biden out of the way is best anyway. It is 31% for Sanders to Biden's 20%.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-double-digits

Better link for Poll results: https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ic-voters-poll

Then they will just ruin Sanders rep.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568526)
I don't understand how it's "weird" or otherwise difficult to understand that it's reasonable to criticize Biden for the behavior that Flores describes, but not reasonable to criticize Biden for being affectionate with a close friend (Carter)...

In your view is Biden's behavior disqualifying to run for president?

Why or why not?

(And yeah, it is not legally disqualifying...we know that...asking for your opinion)

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21568530)
Edited vids. Crap.

Oh no! Fake news!

(Where have we heard that before?)

What Exit? 04-01-2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21568532)
Then they will just ruin Sanders rep.

What are they going to do?
Call him a angry old man, everyone knows that.
Call him a socialist, too late, everyone knows that.
He not a real Democrat, doubt that would hurt with Independents and Repubs ashamed of Trump.
Too Old, well maybe but he is only a year older then Biden

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568553)
In your view is Biden's behavior disqualifying to run for president?

Why or why not?

(And yeah, it is not legally disqualifying...we know that...asking for your opinion)

If I were him I would not run, and I will be significantly less likely to support him against the other Democrats going forward. I'd prefer to support a candidate with no credible allegations of unwanted contact, even non-sexual contact, against them.

I also want to see if others come forward with any stories about Biden's behavior, and what they have to say. At this point I hope he does not run.

DrDeth 04-01-2019 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21568570)
What are they going to do?
Call him a angry old man, everyone knows that.
Call him a socialist, too late, everyone knows that.
He not a real Democrat, doubt that would hurt with Independents and Repubs ashamed of Trump.
Too Old, well maybe but he is only a year older then Biden

What did they do with Biden?

They could come up with a Communist party card, for example.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21568652)
What did they do with Biden?

They could come up with a Communist party card, for example.

This one is a whoosh on me.

Please explain.

SmartAleq 04-01-2019 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568395)
I decline to play this revolting game, because it is wrong to assume how the women/girls felt about that contact.


Oh come on now, I just can't get on board with this at ALL. I'm a human with functioning eyes and an understanding of how humans show their discomfort with a situation and regardless of what someone might say after the fact I think analyzing their observed reactions to a situation is completely valid. For instance, how about this sequence? He puts his hands on her chest, she moves away and elbows his hand away from her with a look of confusion on her face and damned if he doesn't move that hand right back where it was. No. That little girl was not happy with the interaction, did not want his hand on her chest and actively resisted it--and he did it again. That's a determined pushing of clear boundaries and no amount of excuses is ever going to make it okay.

And even if that girl, however old she is now, were to come out and say that "no, it's cool what happened," I am going to think about the myriad instances where I've heard people excuse their abusers and cover for them and insist that everything is JUST FINE OKAY because I also remember those same people breaking down under the stress later on and finally acknowledging the damage done to them. Dissociation is a thing sometimes, and humans have had millions of years of practice in developing and analyzing the nonverbal reactions of other humans--we know what's going on, but some of us decide we're going to pretend we don't, and that's not okay. I am not okay with what Biden does and a lot of other people are not happy with it either and no number of women coming up and saying "No, it's okay, it's cool what happened" is going to make me comfortable with what I had to observe.

DrDeth 04-01-2019 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568665)
This one is a whoosh on me.

Please explain.

The kremlin could fake a a communist party card for bernie. Then back it with real pics of him at rallies, some of his early papers, etc.

Try2B Comprehensive 04-01-2019 03:31 PM

R Kelly's "victims" often seem to cover up for him. Scare quotes because his teenage co-girlfriends say everything is cool, they really enjoy living with R Kelly and have since they were 16. So there ya go, nothing to see here.

Except that Biden isn't accused of anything in the same ballpark as R Kelly. Do people really, truly believe he is a pedophile? Because of a snapshot of him seeming to look at a little girl's chest? It reminds me of that photo of Obama looking at that woman's butt- maybe that photo represented what was really happening, but more likely it was just snapped in an awkward moment.

Not trying to make excuses for Biden. Seems like there are more handsy examples every few hours, which isn't a very flattering news cycle for him to say the least. I just want to say that pedophilia is a little bit too damning of an accusation to throw around casually, on flimsy evidence. If not electing him POTUS is the right thing to do, we can do that without exaggerating his problems.

Try2B Comprehensive 04-01-2019 03:35 PM

ETA: Interesting that this story is all over CNN today, and not in a way that tries to explain it away. If Biden is going to flame out over this, he does it in a way that shows the Dems and their media allies are not just a bunch of mindless sycophants.

SmartAleq 04-01-2019 03:45 PM

I'm not saying he's a pedophile, I'm saying he either has NO idea he's crossing boundaries (seems suspect considering how often people have called him on it over several DECADES) or he's unable or unwilling to control his behavior even after myriad people have told him--and articles have been written, and bits on tv shows have been aired and social media comments have mounted into the thousands over his behavior--and that's not someone with good judgment and/or ability to control his impulses. I prefer people I'll vote to have power over me to have good judgment and the ability to control their impulses. I prefer people who understand and respect common boundaries. I prefer people who do not treat women and girls as objects they can handle at will regardless of their preferences. I prefer people with social intelligence who know when they creep other people out. I prefer people who defer to others about what THEY want in terms of being touched and handled and who goddamned well gain consent before getting their grabby little mitts going. Unca Joe has shown over and over he does not have these qualities, not to mention some other little judgment problems and a demonstrated inability/unwillingness to be guided by others into modifying his behavior. So yeah, no thanks to Unca Joe.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568195)
With Flores, yes. Implying this is true about other women who haven't spoken out is wrong, and it's creepy and gross because you're making assumptions about the consent of a stranger (not to mention whether or not they consider Biden a friend or family).

I'm sorry, I thought children didn't get to consent.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21568815)
I'm sorry, I thought children didn't get to consent.

???

Try2B Comprehensive 04-01-2019 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmartAleq (Post 21568794)
I'm not saying he's a pedophile, I'm saying he either has NO idea he's crossing boundaries (seems suspect considering how often people have called him on it over several DECADES) or he's unable or unwilling to control his behavior even after myriad people have told him--and articles have been written, and bits on tv shows have been aired and social media comments have mounted into the thousands over his behavior--and that's not someone with good judgment and/or ability to control his impulses. I prefer people I'll vote to have power over me to have good judgment and the ability to control their impulses. I prefer people who understand and respect common boundaries. I prefer people who do not treat women and girls as objects they can handle at will regardless of their preferences. I prefer people with social intelligence who know when they creep other people out. I prefer people who defer to others about what THEY want in terms of being touched and handled and who goddamned well gain consent before getting their grabby little mitts going. Unca Joe has shown over and over he does not have these qualities, not to mention some other little judgment problems and a demonstrated inability/unwillingness to be guided by others into modifying his behavior. So yeah, no thanks to Unca Joe.

I already thought his legislative record is not so hot before all of this became the top story.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568828)
???

Guess you didn't look af the first several videos at SmartAleq's link.
Quote:

Originally Posted by SmartAleq (Post 21566036)
Hmmm. Watch through the videos in this thread and if you don't feel queasy afterward then I guess Unca Joe is your kinda guy.


Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21568702)
The kremlin could fake a a communist party card for bernie. Then back it with real pics of him at rallies, some of his early papers, etc.

Still whoosh.

Honestly, you are not making sense to me. Probably my fault. I just do not know what you are on about.

SmartAleq 04-01-2019 04:11 PM

Quote:

I already thought his legislative record is not so hot before all of this became the top story.
Yeah, he was a major architect in the War on Some Drugs and that awful crime bill, supported all the shitty wars, gutted regular people's ability to reorganize under bankruptcy and just in general has been no friend to the common citizen. Just another corporate neoliberal, but this one's also a grabby gross uncle too! Yay?

Oakminster 04-01-2019 04:12 PM

Now there is a second accuser...CNN Story.


Frankly, I think this is ridiculous. Neither incident sounds like actual abuse, or even attempted impropriety. Strongly suspect political motivations are in play here.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive (Post 21568750)
Except that Biden isn't accused of anything in the same ballpark as R Kelly. Do people really, truly believe he is a pedophile? Because of a snapshot of him seeming to look at a little girl's chest?

I agree that photo and accusation is ridiculous. An ancient photo taken at an inopportune moment is evidence of nothing. Certainly in my life my gaze has looked in the direction of a young girl's chest. I was not looking at her chest, I have no interest in her chest but there was a moment when my eyes were pointed in that direction. A snapshot at that moment would look bad.

We have no evidence of Biden being a pedophile. We do have lots of photo evidence of him creeping on women. Maybe all those women loved his attention. We cannot know without interviewing them all. If I were a betting man my money, seeing the look on their faces, is they were not all happy with it.

Biden as a pedo? I don't believe it. At least, it needs a LOT more evidence.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oakminster (Post 21568850)
Frankly, I think this is ridiculous. Neither incident sounds like actual abuse, or even attempted impropriety. Strongly suspect political motivations are in play here.

Where, for you, is the abuse/impropriety line drawn?

Oakminster 04-01-2019 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568871)
Where, for you, is the abuse/impropriety line drawn?


When it's not a years old public incident that has never been mentioned until it appears to be politically beneficial to bring it up is a good place to start.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oakminster (Post 21568885)
When it's not a years old public incident that has never been mentioned until it appears to be politically beneficial to bring it up is a good place to start.

We have loads of photos/video of Biden doing his creep thing. Does that change anything for you?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21568845)
Guess you didn't look af the first several videos at SmartAleq's link.

I'm not particularly interested in looking at tailored random internet crap that, according to the descriptions of this thread, very likely blatantly disregards the personhood and wishes of the women and girls involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568864)
We do have lots of photo evidence of him creeping on women.

There's no way you could know this, and I'll kindly suggest (once again) that you stop blatantly disregarding the personhood and individuality of these women and girls.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568994)
There's no way you could know this, and I'll kindly suggest (once again) that you stop blatantly disregarding the personhood and individuality of these women and girls.

And, once again, I will ignore your improper strictures.

I suggest you read SmartAleq's very good post #179 above.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21569012)
And, once again, I will ignore your improper strictures.

Okay. I'll continue to call out inappropriate comments about women and girls, since it's so incredibly endemic in our society. Maybe one day you'll consider that you might have the capacity for error in this, as well as the capacity to improve yourself. I hope so.

Quote:

I suggest you read SmartAleq's very good post #179 above.
I read through it a couple of times, and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything I've posted. I certainly have no interest in defending any bad behavior, by Biden or anyone else. I don't like it when people ignore the personhood of women and girls and assume they know what's going on in their heads, or what's best for them, without giving them the chance to speak for themselves. It's a very common violation, but it's still wrong.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 05:42 PM

nm

WillFarnaby 04-01-2019 05:44 PM

You don’t need to know what’s going on in their heads. You could crop them out completely and just look at Biden’s body language and find it to be over-the-top creepy. It is comic-book-level absurdity. Think Montgomery Burns meets Glenn Quagmire.

I am actually concerned for these women and girls and I hope they start blurring the faces of at least the youngest ones. Sadly, the media is in a rather sick way right now and they are showing these inappropriate pictures.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21569035)
I'll try this just once more:

- Guy gropes Woman-A and, mildly annoyed, the woman moves on and forgets about it

- Guy gropes Woman-B and she is very annoyed by it and considers it an assault on her person

Is it your contention that it is only an assault if the woman/girl deems it so? Absolutely nothing is different between the two events other than the woman/girl's perception of what happened.

No, that is not my contention, and this has nothing to do with anything I've posted.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21569039)
No, that is not my contention, and this has nothing to do with anything I've posted.

I deleted my post wanting to re-think it but ok...you got it anyway.

I honestly do not know what your position is. Best I can come up with is you do not think I should assume what the myriad of women Unca Joe is creeping on are thinking.

And you are right...I do not know. From where I am sitting it looks super creepy. If they all come out and say no, it was all totally cool, they love Unca Joe's neck-rubs then fine.

Till then Biden looks like a real creep to almost everyone except you.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21569059)
I deleted my post wanting to re-think it but ok...you got it anyway.

I honestly do not know what your position is. Best I can come up with is you do not think I should assume what the myriad of women Unca Joe is creeping on are thinking.

And you are right...I do not know. From where I am sitting it looks super creepy. If they all come out and say no, it was all totally cool, they love Unca Joe's neck-rubs then fine.

Till then Biden looks like a real creep to most anyone except you.

I don't really care about anyone saying "that looks creepy" if they see Biden doing something on TV. That doesn't bother me.

I don't like the usage of these lurid videos of women and girls being touched, that were made for political purposes, without the consent of these women and girls. And I don't like others trying to use these nasty, consent-free videos for their own arguments. There are perfectly reasonable criticisms of Biden's behavior, using Flores' account (and apparently a second account I haven't seen yet), that don't require the usage of random internet consent-free nastiness.

And I really don't like your brushing aside the personhood of Stephanie Carter who is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, and did speak for herself, and you continued to implicitly deny that she could have this voice and was capable of having a friend who could give her hugs as they pleased. I can't imagine how you've convinced yourself that you shouldn't have backed off from this. Biden behaved inappropriately with Flores; that doesn't mean that he behaved inappropriately with Carter, especially when she says that they were close friends and she welcomed his affection. Those posts are creepy and gross, and you don't lose anything by considering that maybe you made a mistake and backing off from them.

Czarcasm 04-01-2019 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21569038)
You don’t need to know what’s going on in their heads. You could crop them out completely and just look at Biden’s body language and find it to be over-the-top creepy. It is comic-book-level absurdity. Think Montgomery Burns meets Glenn Quagmire.

I am actually concerned for these women and girls and I hope they start blurring the faces of at least the youngest ones. Sadly, the media is in a rather sick way right now and they are showing these inappropriate pictures.

Your concern is touching.

No...not touching. What's the word I was looking for? Oh, yeah, I remember now.
Your "concern" is hypocritical.

CarnalK 04-01-2019 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21569012)
I suggest you read SmartAleq's very good post #179 above.

Yes, the nice objective opinion from an angry Bernie Bro. "Not saying he's a pedophile but..." Thanks for the laugh.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.