The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[FrantzHardySwag]

He clearly deleted those tweets. Go find them on his account.

Take as long as you like. We'll wait.

And honestly it's sketch as hell a guy who wrote "We need to talk about Joe", "Trump will run rings around Joe Biden", "You don't really want to nominate Joe Biden", calls him an "ailing Biden", "Sanders needs to keep fighting", "Party needs to unite around Sanders", "A vote for Warren is a vote for Biden" "Progressives, Warren is not one of us", "Why you should be a Socialist", "Bernie proved he's still got it", "The problem with Joe Biden's chummy politics". The list goes on and on. This guy's entire history of articles is Pro Bernie, Anti Biden - and now he's advising Biden's accuser and her family? Just plain sketchy, and it makes it hard to rule out political motivations. 

 

[knapplc]

And honestly it's sketch as hell a guy who wrote "We need to talk about Joe", "Trump will run rings around Joe Biden", "You don't really want to nominate Joe Biden", calls him an "ailing Biden", "Sanders needs to keep fighting", "Party needs to unite around Sanders", "A vote for Warren is a vote for Biden" "Progressives, Warren is not one of us", "Why you should be a Socialist", "Bernie proved he's still got it", "The problem with Joe Biden's chummy politics". The list goes on and on. This guy's entire history of articles is Pro Bernie, Anti Biden - and now he's advising Biden's accuser and her family? Just plain sketchy, and it makes it hard to rule out political motivations. 

Who is also super pro-Bernie.

 

[Landlord]

I think there may have been some confusion due to my word choice in a previous post.

Now I am suspicious of you.

It's weird that everyone pushing this story posting in this thread has to keep editing and deleting and clarifying and reminding.

 

[knapplc]

@knapplc

Really getting tired of your Bernie narrative. 

It's like the minute you find out that someone supports Sanders, you DISMISS anything and everything they represent, have to say, or they stand for.  It's a really lazy and tired argument to do this...it means you can just ignore them and not deal with what they say...the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand.

I'll say this once and once only because it's really easy to understand:  Political affiliation, religious stance, race, and sex...should not disqualify a person from getting proper rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment investigations accomplished.

These items (political affiliation, religion, race, sex) should also NOT be used by rape/sexual assault apologists to discount victims. 

If you disagree, you're discriminating against these individuals...not based on what they say...but based on an idea of what they represent inside your head.  This is faulty and biased logic.  Don't be that guy.

I disagree.

 

[Decoy73]

Since this is mostly a he said /she said type of thing according to most here...I'd like to examine what we know from the victims side of the story...there seems to be confusion and a lot of misinformation out there:

1. Read told the story of her assault to her mom who called Larry King in 1993.
   
2. She told an edited version of the story to her younger brother (emphasis mine) who discouraged her of going to the police in 1993.  The brother is on record stating that he thinks she gave him the edited version because he was her younger brother and wanted to protect him.
   
3. She told a fellow close friend in 1993 who was a staffer for another Senator the full story.  This friend has verified that it is consistent with the allegation as it stands now.  This person was interviewed by NPR but they did not publish the interview because she did not want to go on record with her name because she feared repercussions with her current job.  An interview with her is online at currentaffairs.org
   
4. She told her neighbor, Lynda LaCasse, in either 1995 or 1996. LaCasse, said that the claims Reade is making now are totally consistent with what she has been saying for 25 years.
   

So, we have actual, tangible and credible evidence from 2 sources that are not her family.  And people don't believe them because her story changed...even though there is plenty of evidence that sexual assault survivors change their story due to the trauma of the act.

Keep in mind, her 2 corroborating witnesses are 2 more sources than were present for Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh...and yet, people are insisting there is nothing to see here.  It boggles my mind that people think this shouldn't be investigated or explored or even talked about.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just vote for Trump?  Or just abstain.   Why are you spending all this time posting on this subject?   Just asking.  

 

[Born N Bled Red]

I like living in a world where sexual assaults and rapes like the time one of my family members who was raped...are investigated.

Sorry you guys seem to think there is a different motive.

OH DO YOU NOW??? Why don't you start with these 25 cases then. Let me know what you find out. And if you don't think for a second that this accusation was drummed up simply to "level the playing field for Trump against Biden, I'll have some of what you are smoking. Oh and by the way, the Republican Senate is refusing the search for the "report," that was submitted. Gee, wonder who doesn't want to lose a talking point. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12 

Oh and let's not forget the STATUTORY RAPE charge either. 

https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein 

 

[Mierin]

I like living in a world where sexual assaults and rapes like the time one of my family members who was raped...are investigated.

Sorry you guys seem to think there is a different motive.

It would be weird not to assume there is a different motive.

 

[Decoy73]

I like living in a world where sexual assaults and rapes like the time one of my family members who was raped...are investigated.

Sorry you guys seem to think there is a different motive.

I’m sorry that happened to a family member.  It’s a terrible thing. I think all of Biden’s and Trump’s allegations should be equally investigated.   But I’m not naive enough to think that would ever happen.  At the end of the day on November 3, one is going to win.  You can’t seem to convince yourself to feel good about voting Biden after 20 pages of back and forth when you stated that was your objective.  So I’m just suggesting that you not vote or vote for Trump to make it easier on yourself.   I’m confident there’s nothing anyone on HB can say to make you feel good about Biden and these allegations.  

 

[RedDenver]

Wouldn’t it be easier to just vote for Trump?  Or just abstain.   Why are you spending all this time posting on this subject?   Just asking.  

OH DO YOU NOW??? Why don't you start with these 25 cases then. Let me know what you find out. And if you don't think for a second that this accusation was drummed up simply to "level the playing field for Trump against Biden, I'll have some of what you are smoking. Oh and by the way, the Republican Senate is refusing the search for the "report," that was submitted. Gee, wonder who doesn't want to lose a talking point. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12 

Oh and let's not forget the STATUTORY RAPE charge either. 

https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein 

These made me laugh. Whataboutism - not just for defending Trump anymore!

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

I find it most odd that I have to convince people that Biden's allegation should be investigated when there is more credibility than there was for the last two major sexual assault/rape allegations versus politicians or political nominees.

I don't think anyone here is shooting down the idea of needing more information. I think both sides can agree more information is needed, which is obviously a huge hurdle right now. She has people in her circle that have corroborated her story. There are people that worked with her within Biden's campaign that have refuted some key points of her story. She nor the Senate can produce the personnel file on her, or even acknowledge its existence , a team of 10 Lawyers spend 2 months vetting Biden, and found nothing. There is no date to verify either person's whereabouts. What are most people suppose to do with this information? I mean we had a story just last week that Biden sexually harassed at 14 year old, and people collaborated that story, until it came out that he was at neither the first,  or the second revised dinner she said it happened at. Theres no way for us to move forward at this point, unless maybe Reade gets a lawyer, polygraph test, testifies under oath and gets sworn affidavit's from the people corroborating her story. 

 

[RedDenver]

I don't think anyone here is shooting down the idea of needing more information. I think both sides can agree more information is needed, which is obviously a huge hurdle right now. She has people in her circle that have corroborated her story. There are people that worked with her within Biden's campaign that have refuted some key points of her story. She nor the Senate can produce the personnel file on her, or even acknowledge its existence , a team of 10 Lawyers spend 2 months vetting Biden, and found nothing. There is no date to verify either person's whereabouts. What are most people suppose to do with this information? I mean we had a story just last week that Biden sexually harassed at 14 year old, and people collaborated that story, until it came out that he was at neither the first,  or the second revised dinner she said it happened at. Theres no way for us to move forward at this point, unless maybe Reade gets a lawyer, polygraph test, testifies under oath and gets sworn affidavit's from the people corroborating her story. 

Good summary although I'm not sure what 10 lawyers vetting Biden means. Other than what you've mentioned, the complaint could be found (or the records searched and the complaint isn't found). I suppose Reade could decide to do interviews on the major networks, but I'm not sure what else that adds.

 

[knapplc]

[No message]

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

Good summary although I'm not sure what 10 lawyers vetting Biden means. Other than what you've mentioned, the complaint could be found (or the records searched and the complaint isn't found). I suppose Reade could decide to do interviews on the major networks, but I'm not sure what else that adds.

Sorry, that was in reference to Obama's vetting process for VP.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

I've said repeatedly that her changing story hurts her credibility, but I'm the one who has zero skepticism. Where's your skepticism of Biden?

But it does match her story that she was removed, whereas the Biden campaign has repeatedly said nothing at all happened. The interns says something happened. That doesn't prove what exactly happened, but it's evidence in support of Reade's claim and against Biden's claim.

Fair point, and I agree that going on RT hurts her credibility. But does Halper's credibility matter much when judging the interview she had with Reade? Unless you've got specific points about the interview, then it seems like a tiny footnote to this whole thing.

If it was Biden's neighbor who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, then absolutely I'd give Biden the same deference. But the meeting on the tarmac was COMPLETELY different. Lynch was overseeing the investigation into Slicky Willy's wife.

I can see calling it odd, but it's a huge leap to definitely coaching the witness. And maybe put "allegedly" or something to make clear you're not stating facts but conspiracies.

No! The point I'm making is that it doesn't depend on the truthfulness of Reade's claim. The claim is that Reade only came up with the sexual assault claim AFTER Biden was leading the nomination. That claim is clearly false unless either Reade can time travel or the neighbor is lying/misremembering. Even if Reade lied back in 1996, it still shows that the sexual assault story predates Biden leading or even running.

I agree, but it's a matter of degrees. There's a big difference between being skeptical of her stories and something like making the claim that no prosecutor would ever take her case because of it. I'm not arguing that Reade is entirely credible or that her shifting accounts should be ignored, but rather that it doesn't completely invalidate her claims or give some type of certainty that she's lying.

We completely agree on this point. No where have I expressed certainty about the issue or said that others should be certain. I find Reade's account more credible than others do mostly because of the contemporaneous confirmations. And I'm applying skepticism to Biden and not just Reade.

That is a lucid, organized, analytical, logical post.  Are you a lawyer?

Regardless, if we judge Biden by the standard that he imposed on college students everywhere it's more likely than not that he did something inappropriate with Reade and/or the other women.  Therefore we would give him the political equivalent of Title IX justice.

In April 2011, Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced the release of a bombshell letter, with the bland greeting “Dear Colleague,” to the country’s 4,600 institutions of higher education. It laid out new directives for how campuses were to root out and punish sexual assault. It was the beginning of a concerted effort that radically remade how students could interact sexually, with severe penalties for those who violated increasingly expansive codes of conduct. The accused were to be judged under the lowest standards of evidence, the definitions of misconduct were widely broadened, third-party reports could trigger an investigation even if the alleged victim did not think there had been a violation, and more. Title IX is the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education. Under Obama administration insistence, college offices tasked with administering Title IX became vast and powerful bureaucracies, and students were encouraged to report any perceived violation.

In a 2015 speech at Syracuse University about sexual harassment and assault, Biden made his oft-repeated assertion that, “We need a fundamental change in our culture. And the quickest place to change culture is to change it on the campuses of America.”

 

[BigRedBuster]

That is a lucid, organized, analytical, logical post.  Are you a lawyer?

Regardless, if we judge Biden by the standard that he imposed on college students everywhere it's more likely than not that he did something inappropriate with Reade and/or the other women.  Therefore we would give him the political equivalent of Title IX justice.

Pardon me, but Trump supporters have zero credibility in this conversation.