Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:21 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,180

Joe Biden assault accusation part 2


Accuser Tara Reade says she will go under oath and also allow people to ask her questions while under oath. She will take a polygraph if Biden takes one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/u...interview.html
  #2  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:40 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,879
I hope it isn't true, but even if it is I'm still voting Biden. I don't see how sitting out this election helps anyone.

But if its true its disappointing that Biden ran so many times.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-07-2020 at 06:40 PM.
  #3  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:44 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,492
Up until now, I thought she was just mentally ill and getting some pressure from die hard Bernie people. Now, I’m thinking there may be some money involved for her to pop up for a 3rd time. I can’t keep track of all her scams but many of them involve money.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #4  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:55 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I hope it isn't true, but even if it is I'm still voting Biden. I don't see how sitting out this election helps anyone.

But if its true its disappointing that Biden ran so many times.
If it's true it's also disappointing that the potentially First Black President was so indifferent to his electoral success, that he failed to do basic vetting of his prospective Vice President.

(Or perhaps "difficult to believe" is more appropriate, here.)
  #5  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:13 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
If it's true it's also disappointing that the potentially First Black President was so indifferent to his electoral success, that he failed to do basic vetting of his prospective Vice President.

(Or perhaps "difficult to believe" is more appropriate, here.)
As well as the guy running against Obama, that guy McCain had spent a little time in the Senate himself
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #6  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:15 PM
cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 23,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
If it's true it's also disappointing that the potentially First Black President was so indifferent to his electoral success, that he failed to do basic vetting of his prospective Vice President.

(Or perhaps "difficult to believe" is more appropriate, here.)
I don't know if this is a whoosh, but Biden was thoroughly vetted by Obama's election team in 2008.

Quote:
Through that entire process, the name Tara Reade never came up. No formal complaint. No informal chatter. Certainly, no intimation of sexual harassment or assault from her or anyone else. The team of investigators, expert in their work, would not have missed it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/opini...rod/index.html
  #7  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:18 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I hope it isn't true, but even if it is I'm still voting Biden. I don't see how sitting out this election helps anyone.
Yeah.

I mean, we are down to a choice of a guy who maybe assaulted one woman and a guy who maybe assaulted over 20 women to be the next president.

I want to change realities.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #8  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:20 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
I don't know if this is a whoosh, but Biden was thoroughly vetted by Obama's election team in 2008.
I do not think this means as much as you think it means.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #9  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:20 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
If it's true it's also disappointing that the potentially First Black President was so indifferent to his electoral success, that he failed to do basic vetting of his prospective Vice President.

(Or perhaps "difficult to believe" is more appropriate, here.)
Yeah but Obama's pastor didn't become an issue until well into his run for president. Neither did Trumps access hollywood tape.

Candidates have things come out well into their run. However one would assume that the obama team would've gone over all of bidens records before picking him.

I know Christine O'Donnells niece keeps making up stories about Biden at an event he didn't even attend. I'm hoping Reade's story is the same (a motivated hit job). But even if not, Biden is still vastly superior to another 4 years of Trump. Bidens cabinet, legislation and judicial picks will be vastly better. Its just disappointing if true that in 2020 that these are the options.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-07-2020 at 07:22 PM.
  #10  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:22 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
I don't know if this is a whoosh, but Biden was thoroughly vetted by Obama's election team in 2008.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/opini...rod/index.html
It was kinda sarcasm, combined with reminding people how unlikely it is that a credible accusation against Biden would have been missed by the Obama team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
As well as the guy running against Obama, that guy McCain had spent a little time in the Senate himself
Good point. McCain's people would have been looking for dirt, and looking hard.


I mean, anything is possible. But when it comes to events for which certainty is never going to be achieved, you have to look at the issue of plausibility.

I'm in favor of investigation of the accusation.

I'm not so much in favor of either ignoring Trump's many accusers in favor of mass coverage of Ms. Reade, or of mainstream-media outlets who are desperate for a horse-race. Some of them, hoping for lots of Drama, may therefore give us a repeat of 2016: treating every accusation against the Dem with great seriousness and constant attention, while ignoring Donny and his Grand-Central-Station's worth of baggage. I would hope that won't be the way it goes.
  #11  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:27 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
...However one would assume that the obama team would've gone over all of bidens records before picking him.
It's difficult to believe otherwise, or at least that's the case for fair-minded people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
But even if not, Biden is still vastly superior to another 4 years of Trump. Bidens cabinet, legislation and judicial picks will be vastly better. Its just disappointing if true that in 2020 that these are the options.
Yes to all that.
  #12  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:28 PM
cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 23,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I do not think this means as much as you think it means.
That's OK. I believe both Biden and his investigators. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to me.
  #13  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:40 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,579
San Luis Obispo Tribune article claims to have found a 1996 court document indicating that Reade told her then-husband about ""sexual harassment in US Senator Joe Biden's office".

Last edited by Xema; 05-07-2020 at 07:41 PM.
  #14  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:50 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 30,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
San Luis Obispo Tribune article claims to have found a 1996 court document indicating that Reade told her then-husband about ""sexual harassment in US Senator Joe Biden's office".
Half the story though:
Quote:
The declaration — exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California — does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade’s more recent allegations of sexual assault.
Almost looks like an attempt to smear.
  #15  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:52 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
San Luis Obispo Tribune article claims to have found a 1996 court document indicating that Reade told her then-husband about ""sexual harassment in US Senator Joe Biden's office".
The headline makes it sound like a smoking gun, but she didn't mention assault, and she didn't mention Biden (as the harasser), so it's actually exculpatory.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 05-07-2020 at 07:52 PM.
  #16  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:01 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,934
This is going to be the "but her emails" of 2020, isn't it?
  #17  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:05 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
The headline makes it sound like a smoking gun, but she didn't mention assault, and she didn't mention Biden (as the harasser), so it's actually exculpatory.
But was he “in the room when it happened”? )(Hamilton earworm time.)

Last edited by JKellyMap; 05-07-2020 at 08:06 PM.
  #18  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:34 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
... but she didn't mention assault, and she didn't mention Biden (as the harasser), so it's actually exculpatory.
The source of the statement is her ex-husband, not Reade herself. So there's nothing there that rules out Biden as the perp, nor assault as the offense.

Nor, of course, are those more than possibilities.
  #19  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:55 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Accuser Tara Reade says she will go under oath and also allow people to ask her questions while under oath. She will take a polygraph if Biden takes one.
Anyone can make themselves look more credible by saying they're willing to take a polygraph. But you put enough conditions on it that you never have to actually sit down at the table.
  #20  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:59 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
This is going to be the "but her emails" of 2020, isn't it?
Yup. And just like her emails, the trump team will commit the exact same crimes except brazenly and shamelessly.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #21  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:20 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
This is going to be the "but her emails" of 2020, isn't it?
I just hope it doesn't turn into the swift-boating against Kerry gambit of 2020. Trump Republicans appear to have a very loose relationship with truth, facts, and basic morality, to an extent that makes the anti-Kerry swift-boaters of 2004 look like amateurs. The fact that Trump is a serial sexual assaulter will be irrelevant. The fact that Reade has dozens of mutually contradictory versions of her story will also be irrelevant. The most damaging one will be held up as the gospel truth by Fox News and the Republican machine. I even foresee creative bumper stickers, casting Biden in the role of sexual predator, and Trump as innocent as a new-born babe. Everything is possible in the post-factual Orwellian world of "alternative facts".
  #22  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:33 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
This is going to be the "but her emails" of 2020, isn't it?
This ^

It's "emails" 2020.

More "Let's make sure we hear from everyone, no matter how ridiculous we already know they are" reporting from news outlets that should know better.
  #23  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:42 PM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Anyone can make themselves look more credible by saying they're willing to take a polygraph. But you put enough conditions on it that you never have to actually sit down at the table.
She's already imposed a precondition that's impossible to meet, which is that Joe Biden also submit to a polygraph.

He can't. There is no way on earth that he can submit himself to a polygraph.

For one thing, they're crap. They're about as reliable as a ouija board. Or dunking. And Biden can't put himself in a situation where the results are unpredictable and quite possibly unrelated to whether or not he's telling the truth.

For another, if he does take the test, and is shown to be telling the truth, then he can never refuse a polygraph again, or the response was "hey, you must have something to hide, because you've taken the test before, when you knew you didn't have anything to hide! Gotcha!"

Ms. Reade has no intention of ever taking a polygraph.
  #24  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:43 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
That's OK. I believe both Biden and his investigators. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to me.
I bet Nixon vetted Spiro Agnew.

Turned out Agnew was a crook through and through.

But hey...he was vetted!

I am NOT saying Biden is guilty. I am not saying the team that vetted Biden missed a thing.

I am only suggesting that saying "vetted" is not some magical inoculation against finding out a candidate did something wrong.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-07-2020 at 09:46 PM.
  #25  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:44 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Yup. And just like her emails, the trump team will commit the exact same crimes except brazenly and shamelessly.
Trump himself has not gone after it. In fact some reporting says he privately doubts it.

The Trump campaign instead have announced big #BeijingBiden spending on ads and digital to make Biden out for a pawn of CCP and corrupt on Hunter Biden's business work.
  #26  
Old 05-07-2020, 10:06 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I bet Nixon vetted Spiro Agnew.

Turned out Agnew was a crook through and through.

But hey...he was vetted!
Nixon was a crook, too. "I am not a crook" has gone down in history as perhaps the most famous and egregious lie ever told in American politics. Look at the Trump cabinet. See how like attracts like?

Obama was not a crook. And from what I have heard from interviews of many members of his administration during and after his tenure, their qualifications and competence were generally stellar, so I assume that Biden was vetted quite competently.
  #27  
Old 05-07-2020, 10:22 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Nixon was a crook, too. "I am not a crook" has gone down in history as perhaps the most famous and egregious lie ever told in American politics. Look at the Trump cabinet. See how like attracts like?

Obama was not a crook. And from what I have heard from interviews of many members of his administration during and after his tenure, their qualifications and competence were generally stellar, so I assume that Biden was vetted quite competently.
You are right.

Nixon being a crook then does not mean he is keen to hire a crook who might be found out (which Agnew was). Also, remember, Watergate happened later. Was Nixon a crook when elected and chose Agnew? (I really do not know except a suspicion you never get to that point to run for president without a few skeletons in the closet.)

I dunno...maybe Nixon knew all along that Agnew was a crook and chose him anyway. I am not well read on all of that. I do know it was a big deal that both the president and vice president were about to go down at the same time which freaked a lot of people out.

So, did Nixon vette Agnew, find out he was deeply crooked and hire him anyway or did Nixon miss it?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-07-2020 at 10:26 PM.
  #28  
Old 05-07-2020, 10:58 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,454
I've seen several of Biden's lackeys on several different networks and they all have their talking points:

Lackey: Joe Biden believes that Ms. Raede has every right to say what she said, however, he has forcefully and vehemently denied it.

Reporter: Yes, however, didn't your side say that women should be believed when it came to Bretty Kavanaugh?

Lackey: We are not here to talk about Kavanaugh. Joe Biden is not running against Brett Kavanaugh, he is running against Donald Trump who has more than 20 credible sexual assault allegations against him.

--
This strategy seems odd to me. First, the repetition of the "she has a right to say it." As mentioned in the other thread, if it is false, she has absolutely no such right. Women who are sexually assaulted clearly have a right to name their accuser, but if Joe knows it is false, that line is odd in the extreme.

Second, the dismissal of Kavanaugh as "Joe isn't running against him" can be easily exploited. When pressed, most people will want an answer to that and that hand waiving may last on news shows, but not when Biden is pressed on it personally.

Finally, the comparison to Trump is odd. Is Biden saying that he wins 20-1? Even if you think I did it, I'm not as bad as this guy? And further, if we believe the allegations against Trump, shouldn't we use that standard to believe the allegations against Biden?

I'm not here to rehash the old arguments, but it seems like his talking points are incredibly weak. And once again, I don't believe these allegations against him.
  #29  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:06 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,209
It's too bad Trump has essentially legalized rape for political purposes.

With Trump and his two dozen accusations and with Kavanaugh (who had a very credible accuser and who tried to pass off an obvious skirt-chasing journal as a record of his farts), the narrative was that it couldn't possibly be true because these accusations simply had to be political in nature. You cannot be a rape victim if you are accusing someone who is running for office; their campaign means any such claims are automatically assumed to be dirty tricks of the opposition. All accusations are false unless they are about the opposing party, in which case all accusations need to be examined over and over again like Benghazi. Accusers are first and foremost thought of as opportunists and partisans who will make up terrible stories because they were paid to or because (insert conspiracy theory here). Moral of the story: if you are a woman who is sexually harassed or assaulted, your best bet is to report it early and often, tell everyone and if at all possible, get something recorded. You will still be called a liar and a whore and your video evidence will be dismissed as a deep fake but that is all you can do because your word will never be enough.

As regards Tara Reade, by all means investigate. Investigate her story at least as thoroughly as Kavanaugh was investigated, that's only fair. But I do find it to be a strange narrative, the idea that Joe Biden would just randomly reach up her skirt in the middle of a hallway during working hours. Grabbing women by the pussy is Trump's move and that one is on tape.
  #30  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:16 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So, did Nixon vette Agnew, find out he was deeply crooked and hire him anyway or did Nixon miss it?
There's a theory that Nixon chose Agnew as impeachment insurance. Nixon knew he was going to break some laws. But he figured people who hesitate to remove him from office, if it meant Spiro Agnew became President.

(And as a nitpick, it's vet in this context.)
  #31  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:26 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I bet Nixon vetted Spiro Agnew.

Turned out Agnew was a crook through and through.

But hey...he was vetted!

I am NOT saying Biden is guilty. I am not saying the team that vetted Biden missed a thing.

I am only suggesting that saying "vetted" is not some magical inoculation against finding out a candidate did something wrong.
You’re wrong. You aren’t even pretending to take into account the difference in the VP selection process in 1968 and 2008.

Obama didn’t miss a thing, they couldn’t have known that Tara Reade would show up out of nowhere and make incorrect statements in 2020.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #32  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:43 PM
cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 23,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I bet Nixon vetted Spiro Agnew.

Turned out Agnew was a crook through and through.

But hey...he was vetted!

I am NOT saying Biden is guilty. I am not saying the team that vetted Biden missed a thing.

I am only suggesting that saying "vetted" is not some magical inoculation against finding out a candidate did something wrong.
Uh huh. You're comparing Nixon to Obama. Not exactly the most persuasive of arguments.
  #33  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:47 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I just hope it doesn't turn into the swift-boating against Kerry gambit of 2020. Trump Republicans appear to have a very loose relationship with truth, facts, and basic morality, to an extent that makes the anti-Kerry swift-boaters of 2004 look like amateurs. The fact that Trump is a serial sexual assaulter will be irrelevant. The fact that Reade has dozens of mutually contradictory versions of her story will also be irrelevant.
And as with the Kerry situation, it is not enough to simply defend, he has to attack.

I'll repeat that.

It is not enough to defend. He needs to ATTACK.

With each passing day I start to doubt that Joe Biden is actually Irish.
  #34  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:53 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
As well as the guy running against Obama, that guy McCain had spent a little time in the Senate himself
Mr McCain, born in Panama, expert at crashing jets, had a pretty sleazy history. But as Dr McCoy would say, "He's DEAD, Dale!" And irrelevant now, so back to topic.

Donny has bragged of sexual assaults and desiring to fuck his underage daughter. He has molested underage beauty contestants and publicly cheated on wives, often with hookers and strippers. Jerry Brown scored classier without paying or cheating. And Donny steals tips from his resort wait staff. That's all documented or recorded. A real role model for GOP guys, right?

Ms Reade has apparently changed her story several times which doesn't help her credibility. I haven't followed the details so I'll render no judgement. But [many characterizations deleted] Donny will not get my vote.
  #35  
Old 05-08-2020, 01:12 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
You’re wrong. You aren’t even pretending to take into account the difference in the VP selection process in 1968 and 2008.
No, you're wrong. But I'll give you a chance.

Please enlighten us how Nixon was saddled with Agnew against his wishes.

Ah fuck it...

Quote:
After winning the Republican presidential nomination at the 1968 Republican National Convention, former Vice President Richard Nixon convened a series of meetings with close advisers and party leaders such as Strom Thurmond in order to choose his running mate.[1] Nixon ultimately asked the convention to nominate Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew as his running mate. By a large margin, Agnew won the vice presidential nomination on the first ballot over Michigan Governor George W. Romney, who was supported by a faction of liberal Republicans.[1] Nixon chose Agnew because he wanted a centrist who was broadly acceptable to the party, had experience with domestic issues, and appealed to Southern voters (to counter the third party candidacy of former Alabama Governor George Wallace).[2] The Nixon-Agnew ticket defeated the Humphrey-Muskie ticket, and also won re-election in 1972, defeating the McGovern-Shriver ticket. However, Agnew was forced to resign as Vice President in 1973 due to a controversy regarding his personal taxes.

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_R...date_selection
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #36  
Old 05-08-2020, 01:15 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
Uh huh. You're comparing Nixon to Obama. Not exactly the most persuasive of arguments.
I am comparing two presidents who chose their running mates.

It's not rocket science.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #37  
Old 05-08-2020, 03:21 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,492
You can’t make this shit up.

The lawyers helping Reade? One is a Trump supporter donating $55,000 in 2016

Another. A former writer and editor for Sputnik

https://apnews.com/10d2842623b2c299e2c673bf5a9e23ff
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His

Last edited by dalej42; 05-08-2020 at 03:21 AM.
  #38  
Old 05-08-2020, 03:28 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
No, you're wrong. But I'll give you a chance.

Please enlighten us how Nixon was saddled with Agnew against his wishes.

Ah fuck it...
Maybe you didn’t read your own cite. The running mate in 1968 was chosen with as much thought as what you’d have for dinner.

By 2008, running mate selection was a big deal. Obviously 72 blew up in McGovern’s face. Even in 84, I’m sure Mondale got sick of Ferraro financial scandals and I’m sure he wished he’d picked someone else.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His

Last edited by dalej42; 05-08-2020 at 03:28 AM.
  #39  
Old 05-08-2020, 05:44 AM
cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 23,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I am comparing two presidents who chose their running mates.

It's not rocket science.
Uh huh. Your opinion is even more irrelevant to me now, but keep on flailing.
  #40  
Old 05-08-2020, 07:23 AM
jaycat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
And as with the Kerry situation, it is not enough to simply defend, he has to attack.

I'll repeat that.

It is not enough to defend. He needs to ATTACK.
Democrats don't do that. They roll over and play dead. Or, they "go high".... look how well that worked out.
  #41  
Old 05-08-2020, 08:03 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 20,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Anyone can make themselves look more credible by saying they're willing to take a polygraph. But you put enough conditions on it that you never have to actually sit down at the table.
Likewise, what does "under oath" even mean? You can get in legal trouble for committing perjury in court or before Congress but it's not as though you can swear someone in at a coffee shop or with a reporter and it means anything.

Her polygraph statement was trash. She says she refuses because she's not the one guilty. Well, Biden is innocent until proven guilty. You're making the accusations so either be willing to take the polygraph to help add credence or just say that you're not willing. "I will, but only if he will too!" is nothing more than a dodge.
  #42  
Old 05-08-2020, 08:18 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,180
Interesting to me how many people say no way he did something like this. How many people thought Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill Cosby,etc were creeps ? You can be Mr. straight arrow in public and abusing women in private.
  #43  
Old 05-08-2020, 08:30 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,088
I'm not saying there is "no way he did something like this". I'm saying that looking at the totality of the evidence, it is considerably more likely to me than not that he did not do something like this. If there is more evidence, I'm willing to hear it.
  #44  
Old 05-08-2020, 08:35 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 30,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Interesting to me how many people say no way he did something like this. How many people thought Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill Cosby,etc were creeps ? You can be Mr. straight arrow in public and abusing women in private.
We're in a shitty situation yet again, Biden might or might not be innocent. But he is the Dem candidate and not likely to step down as such. He's clearly a better choice than Trump, so I will be voting for him not knowing if I'm electing a guilty man. We know how guilty Trump & his cronies are and that is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Yay! I mean Biden has the nomination without being close to the majority of Democratic voters first choice. He was the compromise candidate.

Can't demand Biden steps down without some sort of proof. Can't just claim Tara Reade is lying despite the timing. I know I've been schooled on that. I would love to find out she is lying that she was put up to this, but cannot assume it.

Back to the main problem, Trump has to go, to get him gone we need to vote for Biden anyway.

Last edited by What Exit?; 05-08-2020 at 08:36 AM.
  #45  
Old 05-08-2020, 08:50 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Interesting to me how many people say no way he did something like this. How many people thought Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill Cosby,etc were creeps ? You can be Mr. straight arrow in public and abusing women in private.
The main difference is there’s no promise of a career boost. She’s already got the ‘worked for US Senate’ line on her resume. There’s no real step up, that’s the type of job that gets filled by young people for a year or two and then they move on.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #46  
Old 05-08-2020, 09:02 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
But I do find it to be a strange narrative, the idea that Joe Biden would just randomly reach up her skirt in the middle of a hallway during working hours. Grabbing women by the pussy is Trump's move and that one is on tape.
This ^

Yeah, that's the part I find to be a stretch. I don't doubt that Biden groped her and made her feel dispirited about working on Capitol Hill ever again, and I accept that this effectively ruined her career and had a devastating impact on her life. All of that seems believable, and it would be enough of a story on its own.

But like you, I find it a stretch to believe that he just impulsively pinned her against the wall and essentially physically attacked her and actually stuck his fingers up her skirt, through her panties, and into her crotch. I just don't buy it. I'd be more inclined to buy it if she hadn't changed her story and I'd absolutely buy it if more came forward with credible reports of similar behavior. He could have tried, but I don't think he pulled it off.

I'm still voting for Biden - not because I'm really voting for Biden but because I'm voting for his policies and because he's probably a 5 or a 6 on the creepy scale whereas his opponent is an 8 or a 9.

Last edited by asahi; 05-08-2020 at 09:05 AM.
  #47  
Old 05-08-2020, 09:07 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This ^

Yeah, that's the part I find to be a stretch. I don't doubt that Biden groped her and made her feel dispirited about working on Capitol Hill ever again, and I accept that this effectively ruined her career and had a devastating impact on her life. All of that seems believable, and it would be enough of a story on its own.

But like you, I find it a stretch to believe that he just impulsively pinned her against the wall and essentially physically attacked her and actually stuck his fingers up her skirt, through her panties, and into her crotch. I just don't buy it. I'd be more inclined to buy it if she hadn't changed her story and I'd absolutely buy it if more came forward with credible reports of similar behavior. He could have tried, but I don't think he pulled it off.

I'm still voting for Biden - not because I'm really voting for Biden but because I'm voting for his policies and because he's probably a 5 or a 6 on the creepy scale whereas his opponent is an 8 or a 9.
I actually doubt anything happened. I think she’s so mentally messed up she doesn’t know fact from fiction. Her entire adult life has consisted of scams and bizarre stories.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #48  
Old 05-08-2020, 09:13 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Accuser Tara Reade says she will go under oath and also allow people to ask her questions while under oath. She will take a polygraph if Biden takes one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/u...interview.html
So she had a chance to do an interview with Chris Wallace, but Wallace is known for being a pretty tough interviewer who asks hard questions, and doesn't toe the party line. Reade cancelled that interview.

Instead she does a sensational interview with Megyn Kelly, who's basically limited to freelancing. It's a case of Kelly needing an interview to make herself newsworthy again, and Reade needs someone to peddle a conspiracy theory.

I find it interesting that she waits until now to demand that Biden drops out of the race. More interesting that she keeps asking him to drop out, as though that's the more important outcome rather than justice or an apology.

Last edited by asahi; 05-08-2020 at 09:13 AM.
  #49  
Old 05-08-2020, 09:16 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I actually doubt anything happened. I think she’s so mentally messed up she doesn’t know fact from fiction. Her entire adult life has consisted of scams and bizarre stories.
I accept that there's at least some contemporaneous corroborating evidence that *something* happened during her brief tenure in Biden's office. There's also evidence that Biden has perhaps been a little too grabby. I go as far as the evidence takes me, which is why I believe that something - don't know what - happened between Biden and Reade, just not to the degree that she's describing, and I do find her timing to be rather suspicious.
  #50  
Old 05-08-2020, 09:50 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 7,091
Biden should be judged according to the standards he has advocated for others.
So a university official should interview both Reade and Biden, someone who has been trained in dealing with trauma victims. That means understanding that inconsistent, changing stories are not evidence of falsehood and that trauma victims also can make up and exaggerate details without affecting their credibility. The investigation should not presume innocence and Biden should not have a lawyer present during his interview. If he refuses to answer any question that should be held against him. If the investigator thinks it more likely than not that an assault was committed Biden should be forced to drop out without appeal.
Biden has recently recommitted to this standard for others so he should have no problem applying it to himself.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.

 
Copyright © 2017