Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

Your question speaks to the difficulty of adjudicating these type of cases so long after they happen. Absent more compelling evidence (which I can’t imagine exists) I don’t think it’s right to presume Biden (or Kavanaugh) guilty and force him from the nomination.

Wow. So sexual assault cases are too difficult to investigate after years have passed, despite the fact that many sexual assault victims are systematically shut down or smeared, maligned, or harassed for coming forward.

Is it all sexual assault cases that carry an expiry date for you, or just politicians? What about people who were sexually abused as children? Should these cases not be investigated if 20+ years have passed?

Or does it simply come down to "man, an unwanted 2 second attempted finger-bang isn't worth ending his career over." Just be honest. I would respect the above statement a lot more than claiming sexual assault cases across the board are too difficult to pursue after a certain time has passed. That's utter horseshit.

[nots]

Wow. So sexual assault cases are too difficult to investigate after years have passed, despite the fact that many sexual assault victims are systematically shut down or smeared, maligned, or harassed for coming forward.

Is it all sexual assault cases that carry an expiry date for you, or just politicians? What about people who were sexually abused as children? Should these cases not be investigated if 20+ years have passed?

Or does it simply come down to "man, an unwanted 2 second attempted finger-bang isn't worth ending his career over." Just be honest. I would respect the above statement a lot more than claiming sexual assault cases across the board are too difficult to pursue after a certain time has passed. That's utter horseshit.

I’m not rehashing this whole thing with you. Go back to the SCOTUS thread and change ‘Kavanaugh’ to ‘Biden’ and I will stand behind what I wrote, as (to your credit) so will you. We disagree on now much weight to give a 30 year old accusation when the accuser comes forward with a conflict of interest at a time of convenience. You want to believe the accuser, I want more evidence before labeling someone a rapist. No sense continuing to argue. It might be interesting for you to ask why so many in here that wrote extensively in that thread are silent on these accusations or label them fishy when they so vociferously agreed with you back then.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I’m not rehashing this whole thing with you. Go back to the SCOTUS thread and change ‘Kavanaugh’ to ‘Biden’ and I will stand behind what I wrote, as (to your credit) so will you. We disagree on now much weight to give a 30 year old accusation when the accuser comes forward with a conflict of interest at a time of convenience. You want to believe the accuser, I want more evidence before labeling someone a rapist. No sense continuing to argue. It might be interesting for you to ask why so many in here that wrote extensively in that thread are silent on these accusations or label them fishy when they so vociferously agreed with you back then.

Because there's a Just Win Baby mentality, not all--but some.

And to be completely honest I think they're partially justified in looking past this allegation when a man charged with are more serious assaults sits in the White House. As to Kavanaugh, they never really allowed for a full and through investigation, but in todays politics, far too many don't care about character, hell in LIFE as long as they can benefit from the person in question.

[Sour Masher]

I’m not rehashing this whole thing with you. Go back to the SCOTUS thread and change ‘Kavanaugh’ to ‘Biden’ and I will stand behind what I wrote, as (to your credit) so will you. We disagree on now much weight to give a 30 year old accusation when the accuser comes forward with a conflict of interest at a time of convenience. You want to believe the accuser, I want more evidence before labeling someone a rapist. No sense continuing to argue. It might be interesting for you to ask why so many in here that wrote extensively in that thread are silent on these accusations or label them fishy when they so vociferously agreed with you back then.

I think the debate is worth rehashing, because my position then and now continues to be that you and JJ and others are right that absolute, universal "I believe her no matter what, no questions asked" is opening us all up to the weaponizing of this, and the ability of anyone for any reason to ruin a man's career. At the same time, I don't know why this has to be partisan. I don't know why we can't look at things on a case by case basis and discuss the merits of the case without continually defending ourselves for our political affiliations. I am a Democrat that happened to find Ford compelling, not because I am a Democrat, but because of her. Likewise, at first, I wasn't sure what to make of Reade, who seemed spacey and questionable, because of watching her talk and her own vagueness and cloudy memory and her mannerisms and speak patterns, not because I'm on team Biden. But I found Lacasse compelling, because, based on media reports, she has no motivation at all to lie.

So now I am curious to hear from DMT and others on their thoughts on these accusations and why they do or don't believe them. In defense during the Kavanaugh debate many, myself included, deflected the argument that we shouldn't shoot Kavanaught down because of Bill Clinton. My contention then was that was the past, and this is now. Well, now, this is now and those who said Bill Clinton would not get a pass today should speak up explaining why Biden should get a pass, or not get a pass. And I'm not accusing anyone of partisanship in saying that. I want to know your opinions and justifications for them. Why am I wrong to give credence to Lacasse's account? Why was Ford more or less credible to you than Reade and LaCasse and Reade's mother? If there are valid reasons, then maybe they will be convincing to me. If not, maybe I was wrong all along, it is all just partisan for most people, but I hope that is not the case.

[Sour Masher]

Because there's a Just Win Baby mentality, not all--but some.

And to be completely honest I think they're partially justified in looking past this allegation when a man charged with are more serious assaults sits in the White House. As to Kavanaugh, they never really allowed for a full and through investigation, but in todays politics, far too many don't care about character, hell in LIFE as long as they can benefit from the person in question.

Well, yeah, I get this. But this goes back to your "I won't vote for the lesser of two evils" stance, doesn't it? I do firmly believe Trump has done more and worse things than Biden has to women, including his own wife, Ivana, before he coerced her into taking it back, that he raped her. I also believe Biden and especially his team would be far better for this country than Trump. If I have to choose between these two men for president, I think Biden is clearly the better choice, mostly because I think just about anyone would be the better choice.

But we are not quite there yet. I don't believe Biden will be pushed out, but it is still possible, so it is worth debating, I think--should he, based on this accusation of sexual assault? I think that makes for an interesting debate.

Did Biden do this? Did he think what he was doing was sexual assault and should that matter? Reade's account indicates he was surprised by her pushing him away, he seemed hurt, said I thought you liked me. That may indicate his intent was to make a move on a woman he thought was giving him signals to do so and he took it too far. But he did take it too far, I hope we all agree. Is any of that mitigation of the crime and to what extent? What specifically was the act that makes this act irredeemable? For me it is the digital penetration.

If he moved in for a kiss without asking and got rebuked and then stopped and apologized for getting his signals crossed, I would say that the unspoken language of attraction back then could lead to such mix ups and it isn't disqualifying. But who the hell goes right for the crotch with someone they have never even kissed before and isn't in a relationship with. Hell, when is that the right play even with a willing partner--right to the crotch grab within a second of engaging? Unless they were eye-fucking each other and really using their imagination the whole time for a good while, woman aren't generally ready for that physically even if they want to be, in my experience. To me, if you believe that accusation, it should lead you to advocate for Biden to be replaced during the convention. Again, not based on one woman said one thing so the man's life should be ruined. It is based on the specifics of this case. And the one specific, for me, that is a bridge too far is the digital penetration. Is this one incident as bad as the many things Trump has been accused of? No, but it is enough that if we can replace him, why wouldn't we?

By today's standards, Biden committed rape if he put his finger inside of Reade. We likely have had rapists as presidents before (Clinton and probably others), and almost certainly do now as well. I'd prefer if our next one wasn't one as well.

[DMT]

So should we just assume that the other four people who were interviewed by the NYT are lying? Lacasse could be accurately recalling the 30-year-old conversation, or she could be remembering that "something" happened and she's just filling in the details to match her friend. Besides, "hand up the skirt" is not the same as "fingering" and the fact that her story has recently changed is a red flag. The far left has been trying to turn Biden into a monster since day one of the primary so it's not surprising that they're leading the charge. I've already stated Biden needs to address this, but the party isn't going to remove him unless he voluntarily steps down, and I don't see that happening.

[Sour Masher]

So should we just assume that the other four people who were interviewed by the NYT are lying? Lacasse could be accurately recalling the 30-year-old conversation, or she could be remembering that "something" happened and she's just filling in the details to match her friend. Besides, "hand up the skirt" is not the same as "fingering" and the fact that her story has recently changed is a red flag. The far left has been trying to turn Biden into a monster since day one of the primary so it's not surprising that they're leading the charge. I've already stated Biden needs to address this, but the party isn't going to remove him unless he voluntarily steps down, and I don't see that happening.

Yeah, it is unfortunately that political agenda is clouding an assessment of the specifics of the case. It is obvious that many on the far left has had it in for Biden for a long time, and as is so often the case, political opponents are eager to tout any and all wrongdoing, regardless of the evidence, that a political opponent is accused of. We shouldn't buy into that biased narrative, but I'm trying to say, let's now and always look at the merits of the case. You make a good point that LaCasse specifically uses the language "hand up the skirt" not "finger in the vagina," I believe. I need to look again. That can be the difference between sexual assault and rape.

As for the other four people, I don't know. I am just focused on LaCasse, who seems believable.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I love the way you generalize so much DMT. It lends so much credibility to your position.

I'm far left and I haven't ever tried to turn Biden into a Monster. I never jumped on the bullshit with his son, I never said his lapse of memory should disqualify him and I never said he was guilty or that I believed his accuser. I have taken a wait until the evidence has all been presented stance in each and every one of the issues Biden has been confronted with.

ALSO, you're saying that because his finger might not have penetrated it's less egregious than just a hand up the skirt? You must not have a daughter because if anyone put a hand up my daughter's skirt without her permission, finger or not--I'd crush his skull with a bat.

Parsing sexual assault is just fucking sickening.

As for believing a greater number over a fewer--that means nothing to me--I just had 3 people from my former employer lie in front of a judge about a co worker of mine. I was the lone witness for this guy, they lied he didn't. 3 vs 1 should we believe them or him.

Look I get it, you're all in for Biden, but my god man--don't let it cloud rational thought.

[DMT]

But murdering someone with a bat really makes your POV moral?

And yes, there is certainly a difference and if you can't see that that's on you.

[Sour Masher]

I love the way you generalize so much DMT. It lends so much credibility to your position.

I'm far left and I haven't ever tried to turn Biden into a Monster. I never jumped on the bullshit with his son, I never said his lapse of memory should disqualify him and I never said he was guilty or that I believed his accuser. I have taken a wait until the evidence has all been presented stance in each and every one of the issues Biden has been confronted with.

ALSO, you're saying that because his finger might not have penetrated it's less egregious than just a hand up the skirt? You must not have a daughter because if anyone put a hand up my daughter's skirt without her permission, finger or not--I'd crush his skull with a bat.

Parsing sexual assault is just fucking sickening.

As for believing a greater number over a fewer--that means nothing to me--I just had 3 people from my former employer lie in front of a judge about a co worker of mine. I was the lone witness for this guy, they lied he didn't. 3 vs 1 should we believe them or him.

Look I get it, you're all in for Biden, but my god man--don't let it cloud rational thought.

I back you on your stance on Biden. Until this stuff came out, you didn't treat him like HRC and seemed willing to give him a chance.

Regarding parsing sexual assault, in an ideal world we would not. But we don't live in an ideal world, and saddly, men who get poweer very often abuse it. Especially back when they faced little consequences for it. We saddly have to decide how to weigh those transgressions against the greater good these men have and can do. MLK was a cheat. Gandhi used to force much younger woman to sleep naked next to him, to "test" him. Do these acts discredit all else they did? I don't know. It isn't binary to me. Every case is different.

To say that is not to excuse any of the bad behavior at all. If Biden grabbed Reade's crotch rather than penetrated her, that act is still appalling and worthy of condemnation. But I do believe in levels of assault. I know some people say it is bad to make those judgments, and some even go so far as to say an unwanted ass grab is the same as a gang rape and we are not to judge how a victim processes those traumas. I don't agree. Both are bad. One is way worse. So there are variations, degrees, and gray areas, and circumstances. If you want to say in this specific case, a crotch grab and a penatation amount to much the same thing, that is a fair argument to make (although, legally, they are very different acts), but the larger point of not parsing things--I'm uncomfortable with the conflation that happens that puts Aziz Ansari's bad date in the same grouping as Weinstein's rapes, and the unwillingness to consider specifics and act based on those variations.

And in the example with your daughter, wouldn't it matter if your daughter was making out with the guy willingly and he made a move toward her crotch, got rebuked, and moved on vs he just grabbed her on the street? Both cases would be without explicit permission. They are different, though.

[DMT]

People who claim an ass-grab is as bad as a gang-rape are absolutely wrong. That's like claiming the earth is flat.

[Sour Masher]

Something else that bothered me about Reade's account was she said Biden told her "you are nothing to me" after the assault, and the way she said it indicated that hurt as much as anything. It raises the possibility that it began as mutual, she stopped him to ask if this meant anything to him and he insulted her by suggesting it didn't, causing her to reevaluate the entire interaction. It is just an odd comment in the context of her account. But I don't know, I wasn't there. So I just go back to the fact that something seemed to have happened and Reade seemed to have told people about unwanted advanced and this assault at the time.

[GwynnInTheHall]

People who claim an ass-grab is as bad as a gang-rape are absolutely wrong. That's like claiming the earth is flat.

Hyperbole much?

It's guys like you that are going to make it easier for me if Trump gets another 4 years

And you absolutely don't have daughter or you wouldn't be such a cavalier dickhead about this.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Something else that bothered me about Reade's account was she said Biden told her "you are nothing to me" after the assault, and the way she said it indicated that hurt as much as anything. It raises the possibility that it began as mutual, she stopped him to ask if this meant anything to him and he insulted her by suggesting it didn't, causing her to reevaluate the entire interaction. It is just an odd comment in the context of her account. But I don't know, I wasn't there. So I just go back to the fact that something seemed to have happened and Reade seemed to have told people about unwanted advanced and this assault at the time.

We weren't discussion a consensual encounter rebuffed, we were discussing a NON consensual assault.

[Sour Masher]

We weren't discussion a consensual encounter rebuffed, we were discussing a NON consensual assault.

Yes, that is her account of things. So it goes back to credibility. Something bad happened. She told people about it. I'm confused by some specifics, like LaCasse still thinking Biden was an okay guy, and Reade's emphasis on Biden saying she was nothing to him. Such a statement, in the context of a sexual advance/assault seems odd, as if the fact of him caring for her beyond her body was important to the encounter. If that is true, is it possible it started with some implied consent and the nature of the encounter changed in her mind when he told her he just wanted her for sex? I don't know, because Biden hasn't and likely never will provide candid context for the encounter. He will likely continue to deny anything at all happened, which we know is very likely not true.