Some of them overlap.
Then why not when he was running for Veep? I mean, no one knew he’d be top candidate for prez here in 2020.
Touchy is one thing. Biden is a touchy person, altho he has stopped recently- or made a good effort anyway. If someone says Biden hugged her and that made her feel uncomfortable, I will usually buy it. And one case where a woman claimed just that- but on stage she came over and hugged Joe. But she said that’s different as she initiated the hug- well, yeah…
But* this* woman is saying Biden raped her. There’s a huge gap between a hugger and a rapist.
Fiendishly clever analysis. But this strategy must have some plausibility to it. Unfortunately, Biden has seen fit to oblige.
Automatically assuming she’s lying is the sort of thing that Trump and his supporters do. We should be better than that. It doesn’t mean anyone has to believe her, but the accusation should be taken seriously and the accuser should not be denigrated, not without strong evidence she’s lying.
Because, if you have kompromat, you don’t waste it on the guy who is second in command. Not all kompromat gets to be used. But if you waste it on meaningless victories, you won’t have it for when it when it is meaningful.
Skepticism is not an assumption of lying. There is reason to be skeptical here.
As far as I am concerned we have that strong evidence.
She changed her story several times, and now waited for this moment to up it to rape, and she has strong political motives.
What evidence? All we have is sufficient cause to be skeptical and to allow time for more investigation and evidence to come forward.
Her own testimony is proof that this didnt happen. What better evidence do you need?
Maybe I haven’t been following this closely enough. Nothing in the reporting I’ve read suggest the proof you’re alleging. If you’re talking about the fact that she didn’t disclose the full extent of the alleged assault previously, then I’m not sure how that constitutes proof. It’s hardly the first time that women have withheld full details of an assault, for understandable reasons.
Many folks, and unfortunately many Democrats, still haven’t taken the lessons of #MeToo to heart. It’s more important than politics. And one of the biggest lessons is not to jump to conclusions, especially about the motives of an accuser. There’s no hurry in this case.
Yes, there is a hurry. FFS, dude.
NY primary moved to June 23 from April . So does Sanders stay until late June? I say he does . That’s only 3 weeks before the Dem convention.
One thing that has me questioning the accusation is the casualness of how it happened. It almost seems like a spur of the moment action, and if that’s the case, I would expect it to happen a lot. I can’t imagine him being so bold if that was the first and only time he has done that. I would expect a Cosby or Weinstein type of person to act like that, so it will be interesting to see what kind of other allegations come forward. I know it’s not proof, but if no one else comes forward, I’m less likely to believe things happened as she states.
I am not sure that is correct. I do recall a Republican that departed from public life due to a thing about airport bathrooms, but he did not resign, as such, he stayed in office until his term expired.
See, they do not even care. Their attitude is, “Fuck your pansy-ass sensitivity, because our agenda is far more important than someone’s delicate fee-fees.” Non-Republicans leave in disgrace, but Republicans, just about to a man, just push on, because, they are men and do not let that PC BS get in their way.
There’s a hurry for the party to get to the bottom of it as much as they can, but there’s no hurry for us rank and file Democrats to make a conclusion about it.
My GF says she is not lying. Of course she’s also a very big Sanders person. She’s already calling Biden a sexual predator.
I was hoping somebody would open the door to wild speculation. Here’s my reason for being skeptical and the need for further investigation. In the linked Newsweek article, two quotes spring out at me:
<bolding mine>
I’m not remotely an expert in interrogation methods of language patterns. But it’s been my anecdotal experience that when people use poorly fitting language or extraneously descriptive words, they are not being completely honest or are trying to hide something.
You need to say what is correct to make this claim.
I’ve never been called “fiendishly clever” before. I kind of like it. The strategy explains much going back to the “daisy ad” of 1964 to the Swift Boaters in 2004. And while “some plausibility” always helps, it really isn’t a “must have”. There’s that old LBJ story…