Election 2020

[B-Fly]

The non-sexual physical intimacy in which Biden appears to engage regularly is common among family members and close friends. It's completely normal father-daughter intimacy, for example. The thing that is definitely weird is that Biden appears to view that level of physical intimacy as completely normal with relative strangers. That's problematic, as I've noted, and he'll have to answer for it. But no, I wouldn't automatically say "disgusting", and I wouldn't compare it with sexual assault or sexual braggadocio (whichever you attribute to Trump), because again, I think there was no sexual intent. That's not dismissing it. Flores felt violated and belittled and I believe her and feel he should have been fully aware to the fact that his intimate conduct with people who are not intimate family members or friends could be experienced that way. I think he has to review his conduct and acknowledge that it was problematic for that very reason. He did not have express or implied consent for that level of physical intimacy, sexually-intended or not.

[Teenwolf]

This effort to turn Biden into some kind of monster because he hasn't been perfect (i.e., been on your side of every issue) in his 50 years of public service is really tiresome IMO. We get it, you don't like him. He's not my preferred candidate either, but likening him to Trump is just as ridiculous and misguided now as it was four years ago with Clinton.

I think Biden is much closer to Hillary than Trump, but Hillary had exploitable baggage against Trump, and Biden has worse baggage than she did at the time. It's not based on anything to do with Bernie.

If you think Biden has a strong record, on absolutely anything, say so. But I'm warning you that greasing the skids for another Hillary type of candidate will definitely be a loser. Do you get sick of hearing me scrutinize candidates? Defend them. Whining about me pointing out Biden's flaws is pretty lame, especially now that my prediction is nearly complete, and he will be taken out by #MeToo, despite my stated wish that Biden stay in as a paper tiger frontrunner! These criticisms i point out have zero correlation with what I want.

[Sour Masher]

The non-sexual physical intimacy in which Biden appears to engage regularly is common among family members and close friends. It's completely normal father-daughter intimacy, for example. The thing that is definitely weird is that Biden appears to view that level of physical intimacy as completely normal with relative strangers. That's problematic, as I've noted, and he'll have to answer for it. But no, I wouldn't automatically say "disgusting", and I wouldn't compare it with sexual assault or sexual braggadocio (whichever you attribute to Trump), because again, I think there was no sexual intent. That's not dismissing it. Flores felt violated and belittled and I believe her and feel he should have been fully aware to the fact that his intimate conduct with people who are not intimate family members or friends could be experienced that way. I think he has to review his conduct and acknowledge that it was problematic for that very reason. He did not have express or implied consent for that level of physical intimacy, sexually-intended or not.

Well put, as always.

I also agree with DMT--it is totally fair to point this behavior out, which is not appropriate, but the level of demonization, and saying it is no different from what Trump does--that just seems like a hit job because you don't agree with Biden's politics, TW. Your distaste for Biden is clear, and attacks on his politics, record, or electability are fair, but you are attacking his character based on these incidents in a way I don't think is fair at all. I think B-Fly's take above is exactly right. I find it hard to believe you--and Mith--really don't see a difference between Biden's treatment of women and Trump's. One is overly familiar in a paternal way and one is overly familiar in a sexual, self-serving way.

[Sour Masher]

Smelling a women's hair is completely different than grabbing her pussy. Sorry, not even close. And yes I agree it's gross.

Inappropriate, overly familiar, and creepy/weird is as far as I'd go in characterizing it.

On a related note, there is a dichotomy here, between what our current social mores dictate and what research tells us about touching btw. To be clear, I'm not at all defending Biden's hair smelling or kissing here (those bits are clearly creepy and inappropriate), but there have been moments as an educator of adults (college) where I wanted to console or encourage a student or a colleague with physical contact, but would not dare to do that, even though research suggests physical contact, like an encouraging or consoling hand on the shoulder or pat on the back, can have enormous positive impact for someone at key moments. But again, I prefer to play it safe--I won't even ask permission to do such a thing for fear of being seen as pressuring the person into saying yes. That said, I do have a couple of female co-workers who on very rare occasions will initiate a hug of thanks, which I don't flinch away from. I see it as a sign of trust that I appreciate. I do wish the world wasn't so creepy and scary so such things could be a bit more common.

[Teenwolf]

To be clear, let's discuss the reason Biden believes complete strangers feel close enough to him to welcome his touching, sniffing and kissing.

To me, his intention is to be a "man of the people", not shut away in some high tower. That's the intention. He thinks people welcome these intrusions because his stature elevates him above common people, and who wouldn't want to be touched by an elite? People get crushed against fencing to stretch out and touch celebrities, so if you viewed yourself as akin to a celebrity, I could see the confusion in thinking people would welcome your intimate contact. But I still believe that level of misunderstanding how real people function makes him extremely vulnerable to smears like the one I just did. How goddamn easy would it be for Trump and Fox to eviscerate Biden? A walk in the park.

Do you remember when Madonna grabbed someone a few years ago and kissed them? I view it as similarly to that. Her assumption was that she's motherfucking Madonna... people have been stretching to touch her for decades. Too many decades and it becomes creepy.

[revo]

Great article, if you're a PoliSci nerd like me, on candidate analysis from all primary seasons from 1972. Part I here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-more-than-40-years-of-early-primary-polls-tell-us-about-2020-part-1/

[Teenwolf]

2nd accuser on Biden.

A second woman has accused former Vice President Joe Biden of inappropriate touching.

Amy Lappos, a former aide for Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), told the Hartford Courant on Monday that Biden grabbed her at a political event in 2009. "It wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head," she said. "He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth."

This is like the scene in the war movie where the wounded soldier asks the doc how it looks and they pan down to show his legs blown off. This looks fatal to me, unfortunately.

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-...zzm-story.html

[Sour Masher]

I ran across this video TW, and thought you would enjoy how it roasts NYT bias against non-centrist Dems, in this case Gabbard. Of course, it is interesting that such a video relies on a Rogan interview, since Rogan also gives a platform to folks like Alex Jones, but that aside, it roasts this Gabbard critic in a way I though some might enjoy, since she seemed to be liked by bth some progressives and some libertarian and right leaning folks as well.

[B-Fly]

Yeah, not sure where Gabbard's "lane" is within this primary, or if its possible to generate a primary coalition within a crowded field by drawing libertarians along with a smattering of progressives and centrists who are uninspired by the better known candidates, but if she can't earn herself some effective free media in the Buttigieg vein, it probably won't matter. For better or worse, it's probably a situation where she needs to attack the folks ahead of her to draw attention.

[Teenwolf]

Yeah, not sure where Gabbard's "lane" is within this primary, or if its possible to generate a primary coalition within a crowded field by drawing libertarians along with a smattering of progressives and centrists who are uninspired by the better known candidates, but if she can't earn herself some effective free media in the Buttigieg vein, it probably won't matter. For better or worse, it's probably a situation where she needs to attack the folks ahead of her to draw attention.

I totally agree. I've been baffled by some serious support for Gabbard on the progressive side. I'm confident they'll back Sanders when Tulsi is ousted. Same situation with Yang and Warren to a lesser extent. I view both of their vote blocs as largely moving to Bernie, and he'll need them to thwart a coalescing behind Buttigieg or Beto or Harris.

The day after Politico featured 3 articles on creepy Biden, they had 3 articles on Buttigieg top of the page. Its telling.

[B-Fly]

I totally agree. I've been baffled by some serious support for Gabbard on the progressive side. I'm confident they'll back Sanders when Tulsi is ousted. Same situation with Yang and Warren to a lesser extent. I view both of their vote blocs as largely moving to Bernie, and he'll need them to thwart a coalescing behind Buttigieg or Beto or Harris.

The day after Politico featured 3 articles on creepy Biden, they had 3 articles on Buttigieg top of the page. Its telling.

What do you view it as telling about? Certainly the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana is not the establishment's candidate of choice. I do think the media is naturally drawn to youth and charisma, which Buttigieg appears to be leveraging very well at this stage of the race. I suspect he's peaking far too early, though, and that more attacks will emerge like the one the other day suggesting he can't be trusted because he took a job at McKinsey out of college and McKinsey is evil so he must be evil or at least unbothered by evil.

[Teenwolf]

What do you view it as telling about? Certainly the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana is not the establishment's candidate of choice. I do think the media is naturally drawn to youth and charisma, which Buttigieg appears to be leveraging very well at this stage of the race. I suspect he's peaking far too early, though, and that more attacks will emerge like the one the other day suggesting he can't be trusted because he took a job at McKinsey out of college and McKinsey is evil so he must be evil or at least unbothered by evil.

Telling that the MSM is desperate to prop up anybody but Bernie and hope they catch fire. They've celebrated the launch of nearly every candidate except Bernie's. MSM attempts to wag the dog with misleading polling and analysis about Bernie's unelectability in attempting to plant the seed that Bernie is a lost cause. You could call that perspective a result of my own support for Bernie, but honestly, it's been surreal. I've seen zero positive coverage and heaps of attacks. It's all coordinated. But he will persevere.

Do you think Buttigieg's connection to McKinsey is worse baggage than Harris' jailing truant kids parents and gloating and laughing about it? Did you hear that some of those kids had special needs, and she put them in jail for caring for them at home? I wish I could find an article to source that, but I can't. I do believe she has serious issues. Beto is even worse. Buttigieg scares me the most, so I'm glad you think he's peaking early.

I bring up these skeletons all of the time and they're called smears. You guys act like the nominee for the Dems will run against Betty White or something. Do you think these issues won't cripple Harris against a ruthless smear merchant like Trump? I'm on the same page as most here, I cannot fathom another 4 years of Trump. I just have a different view of the type of nominee able to break through Trump's specific style.

[Sour Masher]

The idea that the whole of MSM is uniformly against Sanders sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. It assumes a level of coordination and consistencies of agendas that I don't believe exists. Also, the idea that the media is against Sanders but trying to support other candidates is undercut by the fact that we've seen critical pieces in the MSM about almost every candidate so far. To me, the media is doing what it always does--rides new names to the top, getting eyes and clicks that way, and then, at some point, their attention turns to be more critical, riding the person on the way down for more clicks and views that way. If the candidate survives the revelations and negative wave of press, the press may try to ride them back up, or not. At that stage, I think it is reasonable to examine biases (and maybe that bias is as simple as big name pundits being rich and not wanting to pay more taxes, idk). But the initial up and down pattern has been pretty uniform so far. Everyone is getting a turn in the sun, and everyone is getting a turn dealing with shade. Biden is the latest example of that. The MSM has not ignored Biden's controversies. Clicks and views are what count most.

[Teenwolf]

The idea that the whole of MSM is uniformly against Sanders sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. It assumes a level of coordination and consistencies of agendas that I don't believe exists. Also, the idea that the media is against Sanders but trying to support other candidates is undercut by the fact that we've seen critical pieces in the MSM about almost every candidate so far. To me, the media is doing what it always does--rides new names to the top, getting eyes and clicks that way, and then, at some point, their attention turns to be more critical, riding the person on the way down for more clicks and views that way. If the candidate survives the revelations and negative wave of press, the press may try to ride them back up, or not. At that stage, I think it is reasonable to examine biases (and maybe that bias is as simple as big name pundits being rich and not wanting to pay more taxes, idk). But the initial up and down pattern has been pretty uniform so far. Everyone is getting a turn in the sun, and everyone is getting a turn dealing with shade. Biden is the latest example of that. The MSM has not ignored Biden's controversies. Clicks and views are what count most.

So you think that if Bernie Sanders were accused of the same behaviour that Morning Joe and The View would rush to his defense like they did yesterday for Biden? You think there has been equal coverage of the sexual harassment allegations from Sanders' campaign as the allegations against Harris and Gillibrand and Clinton's campaigns? No fucking way. Articles about Sanders campaign issue treated it with a huge amount of concern, despite zero coverage of the same issues coming up with others. Similarly, MSM response to Sanders first day fundraising total was a collective yawn, then they jumped for joy when Beto slightly bested him. It's a complete farce, and unbelievable to me that you fail to see such blatant media bias.

Bari Weiss isn't the only MSM hack parroting bullshit about progressives. Not sure how the clip you posted supports the narrative of fair and balanced media.

[Sour Masher]

So you think that if Bernie Sanders were accused of the same behaviour that Morning Joe and The View would rush to his defense like they did yesterday for Biden? You think there has been equal coverage of the sexual harassment allegations from Sanders' campaign as the allegations against Harris and Gillibrand and Clinton's campaigns? No fucking way. Articles about Sanders campaign issue treated it with a huge amount of concern, despite zero coverage of the same issues coming up with others. Similarly, MSM response to Sanders first day fundraising total was a collective yawn, then they jumped for joy when Beto slightly bested him. It's a complete farce, and unbelievable to me that you fail to see such blatant media bias.

Bari Weiss isn't the only MSM hack parroting bullshit about progressives. Not sure how the clip you posted supports the narrative of fair and balanced media.

You and I get our news from different places, which I guess supports are different perspectives. I never watch Morning Joe (I would assume that guy, being a Republican, would be pushing against progressive candidates) or The View. In fact, I tend to avoid pundits and prefer journalism that informs me of things, so I guess I don't see the type of spin you do. Heck, I wouldn't have even considered The View a valid source of news or information or even informed opinions, but I'm sure it has strong numbers, so their perspectives probably do have an impact. But I assumed you were talking about bias at the deepest level--suppressing or pushing facts to influence people, rather than looking at clearly biased pundits and talk show hosts. Even conceding the bias of that latter group, I don't think they all get together to discuss their agenda, or get marching orders from on high. A consistency in bias among them may come from selective hiring, though, representing the biases of network and other media heads.

ETA: I've had this debate with Bernie before--I guess I bristle at and don't really understand the concept of MSM. It seems to be a term used by those in the media who want to differentiate themselves from the crowd to attract readers/viewers who want alternative perspectives. But to me, I view mainstream not as some grand liberal hegemony biased against the right, as Bernie does, or biased against true progressives, as you do. I see Fox News as MSM, because they have massive ratings compared to other sources, and I see many blogs and podcasts as MSM, because, again, of the numbers of people that listen or read or view them. I honestly don't know how popular/mainstream my news sources are, but I don't consider them fringe. I read stuff from the NYT, WAPO, The Guardian, The Nation, 538, Vox, The Hill etc. I listen to some podcasts and radio where I'm exposed to more conservative/libertarian perspectives, like the people Rogan has on. In those places, I'm not seeing this uniform, unrelenting bias against Sanders the way you are (some writers in some articles could be read that way, but not everything by everyone as you suggest). But again, I don't know how mainstream all of these are. They all seem pretty big and popular to me, which is how I define mainstream.