Post by wanderingback on Apr 12, 2020 21:57:18 GMT -5
Wait, I’m confused. Isn’t this the same woman that came forward last month? She said he penetrated her, right? It wasn’t considered assault then? I read the article, where does it talk about neck rubbing?
Or am I very confused and this is another woman who also had made allegations against him last month?
Wait, I’m confused. Isn’t this the same woman that came forward last month? She said he penetrated her, right? It wasn’t considered assault then? I read the article, where does it talk about neck rubbing?
Or am I very confused and this is another woman who also had made allegations against him last month?
This is the same woman I’m pretty sure and this is the accusation I read about weeks ago, and it included a sexual assault then so I don’t know what the new news is?
Wait, I’m confused. Isn’t this the same woman that came forward last month? She said he penetrated her, right? It wasn’t considered assault then? I read the article, where does it talk about neck rubbing?
Or am I very confused and this is another woman who also had made allegations against him last month?
This is the same woman I’m pretty sure and this is the accusation I read about weeks ago, and it included a sexual assault then so I don’t know what the new news is?
This is the same woman I’m pretty sure and this is the accusation I read about weeks ago, and it included a sexual assault then so I don’t know what the new news is?
Ok I’m glad I’m not the only confused one
The claim she originally made was sexual harassment, on Thursday, she filed a claim to include assault.
Post by wanderingback on Apr 12, 2020 22:04:20 GMT -5
I triple checked the date and yep it’s from today. The second paragraph even says
“The woman, Tara Reade, first made the assault allegation public last month....”
So I don’t understand, this isn’t new. I do say it says she filed an official complaint last week but her claiming he assaulted her certainly isn’t new, right?
Anyway, not trying to make light of her claim just trying to understand if I’m missing something.
I think it's the same claim she came out with. She just made it "official" rather than a news statement, so that she can take back power and not let it weigh her down any longer. The statute of limitations is long over but she wanted a clear trail of her claims in legal rather than merely public channels.
(I'm trying to type it without snark because I'm not really sure I believe her claims. I think maybe *she* believes it after having let it sit and replayed events over the years since the initial event happened. The memory works in strange ways.)
I think it's the same claim she came out with. She just made it "official" rather than a news statement, so that she can take back power and not let it weigh her down any longer. The statute of limitations is long over but she wanted a clear trail of her claims in legal rather than merely public channels.
(I'm trying to type it without snark because I'm not really sure I believe her claims. I think maybe *she* believes it after having let it sit and replayed events over the years since the initial event happened. The memory works in strange ways.)
Post by cattledogkisses on Apr 13, 2020 7:40:17 GMT -5
I mean, if my only two choices in November are both sexual assaulters, then I’m going to choose the one who can at least competently lead the country. But damn, this sucks.
At least the Trump camp can’t run any attack ads without looking like giant hypocrites?
I mean, if my only two choices in November are both sexual assaulters, then I’m going to choose the one who can at least competently lead the country. But damn, this sucks.
At least the Trump camp can’t run any attack ads without looking like giant hypocrites?
I hate this so much.
But he doesn’t care if he’s a hypocrite. He won’t see it that way.
I’m not sure how democrats reconcile this (or if they should).
The claim she originally made was sexual harassment, on Thursday, she filed a claim to include assault.
From the article:
On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him.
This is the part I honestly don’t understand. If she told journalists he assaulted her, why wouldn’t she name him in the police report?
I mean, if my only two choices in November are both sexual assaulters, then I’m going to choose the one who can at least competently lead the country. But damn, this sucks.
At least the Trump camp can’t run any attack ads without looking like giant hypocrites?
I hate this so much.
But he doesn’t care if he’s a hypocrite. He won’t see it that way.
I’m not sure how democrats reconcile this (or if they should).
Yeah Trump sees this the same way he sees the Hunter Biden stuff - his base won’t care about his assault and corruption, but swing voters will decide both are gross and sit it out instead of voting for Biden.
I mean, if my only two choices in November are both sexual assaulters, then I’m going to choose the one who can at least competently lead the country. But damn, this sucks.
At least the Trump camp can’t run any attack ads without looking like giant hypocrites?
I hate this so much.
But neither can we. That was one of Warren's big issues with Bloomberg.
I think it's the same claim she came out with. She just made it "official" rather than a news statement, so that she can take back power and not let it weigh her down any longer. The statute of limitations is long over but she wanted a clear trail of her claims in legal rather than merely public channels.
(I'm trying to type it without snark because I'm not really sure I believe her claims. I think maybe *she* believes it after having let it sit and replayed events over the years since the initial event happened. The memory works in strange ways.)
You don’t believe her? Can I ask why?
I posted this a week or two ago.
1, there's a lot - A LOT - that has to be investigated in complete fairness to both Biden and Reade. 2, "believe women" doesn't mean to believe anything a woman says because she is a woman, it's really about taking a woman's allegations and statements seriously. And then investigating.
If the Bernie campaign found her credible, then why didn't Bernie do more? Why didn't he refuse to drop out until her story was heard and taken seriously?
There are two explanations for that, that I can see: (1) she's not credible, or (2) she is credible, but Bernie is more of a sexist than he is an opportunist. Which explanation do you believe more?
The claim she originally made was sexual harassment, on Thursday, she filed a claim to include assault.
From the article:
On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him.
This is the part I honestly don’t understand. If she told journalists he assaulted her, why wouldn’t she name him in the police report?
As I said to friends about this: I was already going to die mad about this election, so whatever. It doesn’t matter, add another log to that fire! Great.
The choice is Biden and an assault allegation but experts and scotus picks vs Trump the serial rapist and his band of racist grifters and Gorsuch/Kav scotus picks. I know what choice I’m making.
1, there's a lot - A LOT - that has to be investigated in complete fairness to both Biden and Reade. 2, "believe women" doesn't mean to believe anything a woman says because she is a woman, it's really about taking a woman's allegations and statements seriously. And then investigating.
As far as #2, I never implied anyone should believe everything someone says. I was simply curious as to why people find these allegations hard to believe.
I absolutely think her claims should be investigated but I’ve also seen enough that makes me a little skeptical about the extent of it, her fondness of Putin being a big part.
I'm just wondering why this didn't come up when he was vetted for VP.
That was my first thought. He was a heart attack away from being POTUS for 8 years. But I could also see how she might have not wanted to rock the boat during the Obama years and that since Obama was young and seemed healthy, the risk wasn't high of him becoming POTUS. And we all know how women are hesitant to come forward about public figures anyway. So I wouldn't dismiss her allegations because he was VP.
Beyond that though? Her claims should be fully investigated and not outright dismissed. There are things that make me skeptical about her claims and I know "believe women" doesn't mean "believe women at all costs even if there is evidence that the allegations are untrue," but the way the Ds get around this is by taking the claims seriously and supporting the investigation.
I am not sure what to believe with respect to her story. I don't believe that basically all media is holding off on major stories about her claims because they want to cover for Biden. I think it's far more likely that they haven't (yet?) been able to confirm substantial pieces of her story.
All of that said, I'm feeling some kind of way about suggestions (if her claims are true) that I should vote for the lesser of two rapists. The Convention is still months away! If the allegations are true, we have got to find a way to nominate one of the many other excellent choices we have who haven't raped women.
If they are not true, we need to find some kind of way to demonstrate that.
I'm just wondering why this didn't come up when he was vetted for VP.
That was my first thought. He was a heart attack away from being POTUS for 8 years. But I could also see how she might have not wanted to rock the boat during the Obama years and that since Obama was young and seemed healthy, the risk wasn't high of him becoming POTUS. And we all know how women are hesitant to come forward about public figures anyway. So I wouldn't dismiss her allegations because he was VP.
Beyond that though? Her claims should be fully investigated and not outright dismissed. There are things that make me skeptical about her claims and I know "believe women" doesn't mean "believe women at all costs even if there is evidence that the allegations are untrue," but the way the Ds get around this is by taking the claims seriously and supporting the investigation.
See, to me, priority #1 shouldn’t be how “the Ds get around this.”
Look, I hate Trump as much, if not more, than most, but this is why some people are rightfully calling out the hypocrites right now.