2020 US General Election Thread VI: Covid for VP!

[Valrifell]

That's probably a hard no on either of them.

But it is an interesting question. They definitely don't want to go with someone who they have to introduce to the electorate. They'd need to go with someone with nationwide name recognition. The obvious choice is going to make way too many sphincters to slam tight, unfortunately.

I'm sure Sanders can make the runner up argument, and if the so-called 'establishment' is on its heels after 'their' pick having a sexual assault maybe they can take advantage of that crack and make it happen.

The enjoyable irony would be all the Bernie or busters demanding to be 'asked nicely' will have their roles reversed when it comes to disgruntled Biden supporters. Would they have a moment of self awareness? Who knows.

Are there really people who passionately support Biden to the point where they won’t vote for Bernie?

There are certainly people who exist who would support Biden but would find Sanders unpalatable. We've had a few in these hallowed threads, in fact.

[Cannot think of a name]

That's probably a hard no on either of them.

But it is an interesting question. They definitely don't want to go with someone who they have to introduce to the electorate. They'd need to go with someone with nationwide name recognition. The obvious choice is going to make way too many sphincters to slam tight, unfortunately.

I'm sure Sanders can make the runner up argument, and if the so-called 'establishment' is on its heels after 'their' pick having a sexual assault maybe they can take advantage of that crack and make it happen.

The enjoyable irony would be all the Bernie or busters demanding to be 'asked nicely' will have their roles reversed when it comes to disgruntled Biden supporters. Would they have a moment of self awareness? Who knows.

Are there really people who passionately support Biden to the point where they won’t vote for Bernie?

Did you sit out the primary up to this point?

[Uiiop]

https://twitter.com/RichMcHugh/status/1253812727262388224
Looks like time travelling Russians created some more circumstancial evidence in 1993 to support Tara Reade's story.

Circumstantial is a problem though. If this is her mother's voice (which we can't verify; we only can go off her account of saying "yes, that's my mom"), then it certainly doesn't help Biden. However, the caller never mentions sexual assault, only "problems that my daughter had with a senator". Or simply put it:

Still, the mother’s interview doesn’t specifically corroborate Reade’s latest allegations of assault, and could be referring more to the bullying allegations she raised last year. The Washington Post reported that in a 2020 interview, Reade laid more blame with Biden’s staffers for “bullying her” than with Biden himself.

And that's from a Fox Article surprisingly. So, despite the tape, it's still going to be hard for her to prove her mother was referring to sexual assault here, especially when Ms. (Mrs.?) Reade also noted bullying from Biden's staffers. Still, it's going to be a nagging headache for Biden until evidence show Biden is either innocent or guilty of the charge.

It's important to note that all statements from Biden's former staff and campaign don't distinguish between two allegations and at least the former denies any of her claims. Other than when they collaborate the change in duties.
So one can say it kinda undermines their words.

[The Black Forrest]

Are there really people who passionately support Biden to the point where they won’t vote for Bernie?

Did you sit out the primary up to this point?

I would offer that was a yes,

[New haven america]

(Image)

It's not as easy as "young voters didn't show up." For many young voters, and poor voters - often overlapping groups, there are barriers to voting. Half of voters aged 18-29 couldn't vote because they had other obligations, namely work (election day should be a national holiday and primary days should be state holidays - letting people have work off to vote), or because they had problems registering (personally why I didn't vote in 2018, an attempt to update my address on my voter registration resulted in the state board removing me from the registered voter pool).

Polling site lines can be long, and when young people have an eight hour (or ten hour like me) shift, they can't stand in line for hours. Among other barriers:

Too busy or had a conflict on Election Day / couldn’t afford to spend time in long line; lack of transportation; inconvenient hours or location of polling place / trouble locating their polling place; registration problems / lacking proper ID; or being out of town / did not receive an absentee ballot in time to vote. [1]
Among youth 18 and 19 years old who were not registered to vote, 23% said they missed the registration deadlines, 6% said they didn’t know where or how to register. [6]
Young people who are registered to vote turn out in high numbers. In the 2008 election, 84% of those youth 18-29 who were registered to vote actually cast a ballot. Guiding youth through the registration process is one potential step to closing the age-related voting gap. [5]
A state’s laws related to voter registration and voting can have an impact on youth voter turnout. Seven out of the top 10 youth turnout states had some of the more ambitious measures, including Election Day registration, voting by mail (Oregon), or not requiring registration to vote (North Dakota). [5]
Many would-be voters face a range of barriers: voter ID laws, registration difficulty, or criminal records. [3]

Source

Another good source explaining how voting isn't made easy for most

The short answer? Voter suppression — which takes countless forms, including voter I.D. restrictions, inflexible work and school schedules that prevent citizens from taking time to vote, lack of civics education in schools, the sudden closing (or changing) of polling places, lack of childcare or eldercare, and hours-long wait times to cast a vote. A plethora of factors make voting in America less a thing everyone participates in, and more a competitive sport that seems to demand more training and planning than our systems currently offer.

“Instead of blaming young people and assuming they are tuned-out due to narcissism or apathy, we should work together across generations and institutions to remove voter impediments and implement best practices,” said Yael Bromberg, Chief Counsel for Voting Rights of The Andrew Goodman Foundation and Principal, Bromberg Law LLC. She explained that there are a range of obstacles placed in young peoples’ paths to vote, including the “over-reliance by young people on provisional ballots,” voter identification laws, and the issue of accessible polling locations. Bromberg conducted studies on youth voting rights and the twenty-sixth amendment, which also cited cuts to early voting and same-day registration, voter intimidation by election officials sharing misinformation, and gerrymandering as factors that threaten the youth vote.

Dismissing the 18 to 29-year-old voter demographic as apathetic or lazy does a disservice to the country: Instead of acknowledging the barriers that make it difficult or even impossible to vote, critics take the simpler route, rejecting a demographic as non-participatory rather than grappling with solving the systemic issues.

Source

All of the states that participated in Super Tuesday allowed Absentee and Mail-in Ballots.

Also, the only reports of supposed voter suppression happening were only in places where Bernie won...

[Zurkerx]

Circumstantial is a problem though. If this is her mother's voice (which we can't verify; we only can go off her account of saying "yes, that's my mom"), then it certainly doesn't help Biden. However, the caller never mentions sexual assault, only "problems that my daughter had with a senator". Or simply put it:

Still, the mother’s interview doesn’t specifically corroborate Reade’s latest allegations of assault, and could be referring more to the bullying allegations she raised last year. The Washington Post reported that in a 2020 interview, Reade laid more blame with Biden’s staffers for “bullying her” than with Biden himself.

And that's from a Fox Article surprisingly. So, despite the tape, it's still going to be hard for her to prove her mother was referring to sexual assault here, especially when Ms. (Mrs.?) Reade also noted bullying from Biden's staffers. Still, it's going to be a nagging headache for Biden until evidence show Biden is either innocent or guilty of the charge.

It's important to note that all statements from Biden's former staff and campaign don't distinguish between two allegations and at least the former denies any of her claims. Other than when they collaborate the change in duties.
So one can say it kinda undermines their words.

Hmm, that is true. Also hmm, I didn't realize she made mention of the video before of its release:

Before the King video was discovered, Reade told media outlets, including POLITICO, that her mother had called into his show. She did not remember the date of the show at the time.

"She called him, I think, 'a prominent senator,'" Reade said in an interview last month. “She didn’t get into the assault, she got into the harassment. She said my daughter was sexually harassed by a very prominent senator, and then they retaliated and fired her.”

The Prominent Senator part is right, but the boldened was never said in the video; no mention of sexual assault or her being fired. However, it's not a good sign for Biden though if I am to be honest, if people don't care about Trump's allegations (which is unfortunate), then I'm unfortunately going to say they won't care about Biden's; Americans are going to likely focus on and be like "damn, both sexually assaulted people but who's going to help me more?"

If these allegations are true, he should be removed from the ticket, though while conventional wisdom would tell us it should be Sanders, I don't think that will be the case. In fact, I think they would nominate Cuomo. Yet, if Biden were to say "Sanders should be the nominee if I can't be", then it'll be hard for the DNC to deny Sanders that.

[San Lumen]

It's important to note that all statements from Biden's former staff and campaign don't distinguish between two allegations and at least the former denies any of her claims. Other than when they collaborate the change in duties.
So one can say it kinda undermines their words.

Hmm, that is true. Also hmm, I didn't realize she made mention of the video before of its release:

Before the King video was discovered, Reade told media outlets, including POLITICO, that her mother had called into his show. She did not remember the date of the show at the time.

"She called him, I think, 'a prominent senator,'" Reade said in an interview last month. “She didn’t get into the assault, she got into the harassment. She said my daughter was sexually harassed by a very prominent senator, and then they retaliated and fired her.”

The Prominent Senator part is right, but the boldened was never said in the video; no mention of sexual assault or her being fired. However, it's not a good sign for Biden though if I am to be honest, if people don't care about Trump's allegations (which is unfortunate), then I'm unfortunately going to say they won't care about Biden's; Americans are going to likely focus on and be like "damn, both sexually assaulted people but who's going to help me more?"

If these allegations are true, he should be removed from the ticket, though while conventional wisdom would tell us it should be Sanders, I don't think that will be the case. In fact, I think they would nominate Cuomo. Yet, if Biden were to say "Sanders should be the nominee if I can't be", then it'll be hard for the DNC to deny Sanders that.

What is the point in coming forward so many years later? What is she trying to gain when the statue of limitations has long since passed? How could it even be proved?

[Uiiop]

It's important to note that all statements from Biden's former staff and campaign don't distinguish between two allegations and at least the former denies any of her claims. Other than when they collaborate the change in duties.
So one can say it kinda undermines their words.

Hmm, that is true. Also hmm, I didn't realize she made mention of the video before of its release:

Before the King video was discovered, Reade told media outlets, including POLITICO, that her mother had called into his show. She did not remember the date of the show at the time.

"She called him, I think, 'a prominent senator,'" Reade said in an interview last month. “She didn’t get into the assault, she got into the harassment. She said my daughter was sexually harassed by a very prominent senator, and then they retaliated and fired her.”

The Prominent Senator part is right, but the boldened was never said in the video; no mention of sexual assault or her being fired. However, it's not a good sign for Biden though if I am to be honest, if people don't care about Trump's allegations (which is unfortunate), then I'm unfortunately going to say they won't care about Biden's; Americans are going to likely focus on and be like "damn, both sexually assaulted people but who's going to help me more?"

If these allegations are true, he should be removed from the ticket, though while conventional wisdom would tell us it should be Sanders, I don't think that will be the case. In fact, I think they would nominate Cuomo. Yet, if Biden were to say "Sanders should be the nominee if I can't be", then it'll be hard for the DNC to deny Sanders that.

May i add for the record that the DC police is currently actively investigating his?

Either or not it will lead to anything or even why they're doing it an open question. But it is another thing to go "Hmm" at.

[San Lumen]

Hmm, that is true. Also hmm, I didn't realize she made mention of the video before of its release:

Before the King video was discovered, Reade told media outlets, including POLITICO, that her mother had called into his show. She did not remember the date of the show at the time.

"She called him, I think, 'a prominent senator,'" Reade said in an interview last month. “She didn’t get into the assault, she got into the harassment. She said my daughter was sexually harassed by a very prominent senator, and then they retaliated and fired her.”

The Prominent Senator part is right, but the boldened was never said in the video; no mention of sexual assault or her being fired. However, it's not a good sign for Biden though if I am to be honest, if people don't care about Trump's allegations (which is unfortunate), then I'm unfortunately going to say they won't care about Biden's; Americans are going to likely focus on and be like "damn, both sexually assaulted people but who's going to help me more?"

If these allegations are true, he should be removed from the ticket, though while conventional wisdom would tell us it should be Sanders, I don't think that will be the case. In fact, I think they would nominate Cuomo. Yet, if Biden were to say "Sanders should be the nominee if I can't be", then it'll be hard for the DNC to deny Sanders that.

May i add for the record that the DC police is currently actively investigating his?

Either or not it will lead to anything or even why they're doing it an open question. But it is another thing to go "Hmm" at.

What's the point when the statue of limitations has long since past?

[Zurkerx]

Hmm, that is true. Also hmm, I didn't realize she made mention of the video before of its release:

Before the King video was discovered, Reade told media outlets, including POLITICO, that her mother had called into his show. She did not remember the date of the show at the time.

"She called him, I think, 'a prominent senator,'" Reade said in an interview last month. “She didn’t get into the assault, she got into the harassment. She said my daughter was sexually harassed by a very prominent senator, and then they retaliated and fired her.”

The Prominent Senator part is right, but the boldened was never said in the video; no mention of sexual assault or her being fired. However, it's not a good sign for Biden though if I am to be honest, if people don't care about Trump's allegations (which is unfortunate), then I'm unfortunately going to say they won't care about Biden's; Americans are going to likely focus on and be like "damn, both sexually assaulted people but who's going to help me more?"

If these allegations are true, he should be removed from the ticket, though while conventional wisdom would tell us it should be Sanders, I don't think that will be the case. In fact, I think they would nominate Cuomo. Yet, if Biden were to say "Sanders should be the nominee if I can't be", then it'll be hard for the DNC to deny Sanders that.

What is the point in coming forward so many years later? What is she trying to gain when the statue of limitations has long since passed? How could it even be proved?

Just like Bill Cosby's accusers? Weinstein's? Louis CK's? They stayed silence for much longer and those accusers (I think except CK's) within the MeToo movement were praised. A politician shouldn't get an exception. While I was skeptical initially, this definitely needs to be looked at. If he did nothing wrong, we go on our lives. If so, then he needs to be removed.

Hmm, that is true. Also hmm, I didn't realize she made mention of the video before of its release:

Before the King video was discovered, Reade told media outlets, including POLITICO, that her mother had called into his show. She did not remember the date of the show at the time.

"She called him, I think, 'a prominent senator,'" Reade said in an interview last month. “She didn’t get into the assault, she got into the harassment. She said my daughter was sexually harassed by a very prominent senator, and then they retaliated and fired her.”

The Prominent Senator part is right, but the boldened was never said in the video; no mention of sexual assault or her being fired. However, it's not a good sign for Biden though if I am to be honest, if people don't care about Trump's allegations (which is unfortunate), then I'm unfortunately going to say they won't care about Biden's; Americans are going to likely focus on and be like "damn, both sexually assaulted people but who's going to help me more?"

If these allegations are true, he should be removed from the ticket, though while conventional wisdom would tell us it should be Sanders, I don't think that will be the case. In fact, I think they would nominate Cuomo. Yet, if Biden were to say "Sanders should be the nominee if I can't be", then it'll be hard for the DNC to deny Sanders that.

May i add for the record that the DC police is currently actively investigating his?

Either or not it will lead to anything or even why they're doing it an open question. But it is another thing to go "Hmm" at.

Then it looks like I'll have to go hmm, then

So the DC Police are investigating it? In that case, I'll await their conclusion

[San Lumen]

What is the point in coming forward so many years later? What is she trying to gain when the statue of limitations has long since passed? How could it even be proved?

Just like Bill Cosby's accusers? Weinstein's? Louis CK's? They stayed silence for much longer and those accusers (I think except CK's) within the MeToo movement were praised. A politician shouldn't get an exception. While I was skeptical initially, this definitely needs to be looked at. If he did nothing wrong, we go on our lives. If so, then he needs to be removed.

May i add for the record that the DC police is currently actively investigating his?

Either or not it will lead to anything or even why they're doing it an open question. But it is another thing to go "Hmm" at.

Then it looks like I'll have to go hmm, then

So the DC Police are investigating it? In that case, I'll await their conclusion

The statue of limitations hadn't passed for any of them. In this case it has long since expired.

[Zurkerx]

Just like Bill Cosby's accusers? Weinstein's? Louis CK's? They stayed silence for much longer and those accusers (I think except CK's) within the MeToo movement were praised. A politician shouldn't get an exception. While I was skeptical initially, this definitely needs to be looked at. If he did nothing wrong, we go on our lives. If so, then he needs to be removed.



Then it looks like I'll have to go hmm, then

So the DC Police are investigating it? In that case, I'll await their conclusion

The statue of limitations hadn't passed for any of them. In this case it has long since expired.

Just because said limitations have passed doesn't mean they shouldn't go unpunished. If Biden sexually assaulted her, then he needs to be removed from the ticket. Simple as that. It's called ethics, and Republicans will enjoy feasting on that if he remains on the ticket despite Trump's Hush Payments to Daniels.

[San Lumen]

The statue of limitations hadn't passed for any of them. In this case it has long since expired.

Just because said limitations have passed doesn't mean they shouldn't go unpunished. If Biden sexually assaulted her, then he needs to be removed from the ticket. Simple as that. It's called ethics, and Republicans will enjoy feasting on that if he remains on the ticket despite Trump's Hush Payments to Daniels.

And therefore we should have a double standard? How would you prove something from almost thirty years ago. And removing him from the ticket would basically guarantee a loss but if Democrats want to blow the election by all means go ahead and do so.

[Albrenia]

The statue of limitations hadn't passed for any of them. In this case it has long since expired.

Just because said limitations have passed doesn't mean they shouldn't go unpunished. If Biden sexually assaulted her, then he needs to be removed from the ticket. Simple as that. It's called ethics, and Republicans will enjoy feasting on that if he remains on the ticket despite Trump's Hush Payments to Daniels.

I agree, although I'm not sure who could be trusted to investigate it if the proper authorities are not going to do so. Democrat funded investigators? Trump White House funded ones? Journalists or PIs with their own potential agendas?

[Page]

That's probably a hard no on either of them.

But it is an interesting question. They definitely don't want to go with someone who they have to introduce to the electorate. They'd need to go with someone with nationwide name recognition. The obvious choice is going to make way too many sphincters to slam tight, unfortunately.

I'm sure Sanders can make the runner up argument, and if the so-called 'establishment' is on its heels after 'their' pick having a sexual assault maybe they can take advantage of that crack and make it happen.

The enjoyable irony would be all the Bernie or busters demanding to be 'asked nicely' will have their roles reversed when it comes to disgruntled Biden supporters. Would they have a moment of self awareness? Who knows.

I would not have Bernie as VP for 2 reasons.

1. He is more powerful in the Senate at this point, helping to pass progressive legislation.

2. Having two 70+ individuals on the same ticket does not help the situation if anything happened to either of them during Biden's administration.

We have a line of succession for a reason. If Bernie is the VP and Biden dies and then he dies, Nancy Pelosi will become President.

Now Pelosi is far from my favorite potential President, considering that she's an opportunist who has sold out the people on quite a few occasions. The point is though that I really don't care about the age of the President or Vice President, the show will go on.

[Corrian]

I don't get how this new thing is the huge damning evidence people make it out to be. Its barely clear what the person is even talking about in the chat. They all automatically assume its the allegation she's talking about, when I'm pretty sure that if it was actually rape, there wouldn't be a "Oh, but she didn't want to ruin his credibilty" or whatever. I dunno, I'm still not seeing it, but I figure we'll get more news on it.

[Zurkerx]

Just because said limitations have passed doesn't mean they shouldn't go unpunished. If Biden sexually assaulted her, then he needs to be removed from the ticket. Simple as that. It's called ethics, and Republicans will enjoy feasting on that if he remains on the ticket despite Trump's Hush Payments to Daniels.

And therefore we should have a double standard? How would you prove something from almost thirty years ago. And removing him from the ticket would basically guarantee a loss but if Democrats want to blow the election by all means go ahead and do so.

It's called an investigation, and it should be conducted by the police (as the DC is doing). So, if the nominee of any given party was found and proven to sexually assault a woman (or women), then should they be removed from the ticket, even if it costs them the election?

Just because said limitations have passed doesn't mean they shouldn't go unpunished. If Biden sexually assaulted her, then he needs to be removed from the ticket. Simple as that. It's called ethics, and Republicans will enjoy feasting on that if he remains on the ticket despite Trump's Hush Payments to Daniels.

I agree, although I'm not sure who could be trusted to investigate it if the proper authorities are not going to do so. Democrat funded investigators? Trump White House funded ones? Journalists or PIs with their own potential agendas?

The police of course, or an independent counsel but the police should: that's the most logical option.

I don't get how this new thing is the huge damning evidence people make it out to be. Its barely clear what the person is even talking about in the chat. They all automatically assume its the allegation she's talking about, when I'm pretty sure that if it was actually rape, there wouldn't be a "Oh, but she didn't want to ruin his credibilty" or whatever. I dunno, I'm still not seeing it, but I figure we'll get more news on it.

That's a good point and I agree and this is something else I have learned: DC changed their Statue of Limitations. But what baffles me more is the fact Reade has no plans to sue Biden in civil court despite said limitations being removed, which is extremely odd to me (forgive me, it's from the Washington Examiner). I'll wait what the DC Police have to say but most likely, this allegation isn't going to go far, not without damning proof.

[Kannap]

I would not have Bernie as VP for 2 reasons.

1. He is more powerful in the Senate at this point, helping to pass progressive legislation.

2. Having two 70+ individuals on the same ticket does not help the situation if anything happened to either of them during Biden's administration.

We have a line of succession for a reason. If Bernie is the VP and Biden dies and then he dies, Nancy Pelosi will become President.

Now Pelosi is far from my favorite potential President, considering that she's an opportunist who has sold out the people on quite a few occasions. The point is though that I really don't care about the age of the President or Vice President, the show will go on.

Line of succession isn't really good justification to have two 70 year olds on one ticket. Would much rather prefer Biden to select a younger VP, especially since whoever he selects would be poised in a position to run for the Presidency next - presuming he wins.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That Politico article regarding Reade's mother is a really bad look for Biden. It doesn't prove it's 100% true, but evidently she told at least some people about the supposed incident way back when.

[Zurkerx]

That Politico article regarding Reade's mother is a really bad look for Biden. It doesn't prove it's 100% true, but evidently she told at least some people about the supposed incident way back when.

Indeed though we should note it doesn't specifically reference that incident. As Corrian said, if Reade was sexually assaulted like she was, why would the mother "she didn't want to ruin the senator's credibility"? This case is baffling and there are so many loops to jump through that her case is just weak. Now, I think there's a good chance that Biden didn't respect his space and it likely creep her out. After all, she didn't mention the grotesque details until about a year after she made the allegation. As I (and Reagan) would say: Trust, but verify.

[Page]

There isn't enough evidence to definitively say whether Biden is guilty or not but I think congressmen and Senators probably have more sexual predators per capita than the general population, same goes for CEO's. Those who attain that kind of power are the types who don't mind taking advantage of vulnerable people.

In any case Biden has been proven guilty of frequent unwanted touching and whether there is sexual intent or not isn't all that relevant, he's a man who doesn't respect personal space.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That Politico article regarding Reade's mother is a really bad look for Biden. It doesn't prove it's 100% true, but evidently she told at least some people about the supposed incident way back when.

Indeed though we should note it doesn't specifically reference that incident. As Corrian said, if Reade was sexually assaulted like she was, why would the mother "she didn't want to ruin the senator's credibility"? This case is baffling and there are so many loops to jump through that her case is just weak. Now, I think there's a good chance that Biden didn't respect his space and it likely creep her out. After all, she didn't mention the grotesque details until about a year after she made the allegation. As I (and Reagan) would say: Trust, but verify.

The underlined is not an uncommon thing actually. Trauma victims often end up self blaming and convincing themselves it was their fault and whatnot. If you fall into that pit it's really easy to understand that statement.

[San Lumen]

That Politico article regarding Reade's mother is a really bad look for Biden. It doesn't prove it's 100% true, but evidently she told at least some people about the supposed incident way back when.

Indeed though we should note it doesn't specifically reference that incident. As Corrian said, if Reade was sexually assaulted like she was, why would the mother "she didn't want to ruin the senator's credibility"? This case is baffling and there are so many loops to jump through that her case is just weak. Now, I think there's a good chance that Biden didn't respect his space and it likely creep her out. After all, she didn't mention the grotesque details until about a year after she made the allegation. As I (and Reagan) would say: Trust, but verify.

This whole thing is very weak I agree and certainly not worth removing someone from the ticket over but Democrats have done dumber things in the past

[Zurkerx]

Indeed though we should note it doesn't specifically reference that incident. As Corrian said, if Reade was sexually assaulted like she was, why would the mother "she didn't want to ruin the senator's credibility"? This case is baffling and there are so many loops to jump through that her case is just weak. Now, I think there's a good chance that Biden didn't respect his space and it likely creep her out. After all, she didn't mention the grotesque details until about a year after she made the allegation. As I (and Reagan) would say: Trust, but verify.

The underlined is not an uncommon thing actually. Trauma victims often end up self blaming and convincing themselves it was their fault and whatnot. If you fall into that pit it's really easy to understand that statement.

Hmm, then that would make sense though I'm holding my breath: I would like to see if a thorough investigation finds anything, that's if they do one.

Indeed though we should note it doesn't specifically reference that incident. As Corrian said, if Reade was sexually assaulted like she was, why would the mother "she didn't want to ruin the senator's credibility"? This case is baffling and there are so many loops to jump through that her case is just weak. Now, I think there's a good chance that Biden didn't respect his space and it likely creep her out. After all, she didn't mention the grotesque details until about a year after she made the allegation. As I (and Reagan) would say: Trust, but verify.

This whole thing is very weak I agree and certainly not worth removing someone from the ticket over but Democrats have done dumber things in the past

In its current state, no, it doesn't. But if more evidence comes to light, then it could.

Anyway, it looks like the push to have a black woman as Biden's VP is a big factor. Top names are Abrams and Harris, but they come with their liabilities. Other names in consideration are Demings (Florida), Fudge (Ohio), and KLB (Georgia), with the latter getting more of a preference from Rep. Clyburn and honestly is considered my top dark horse pick.

[San Lumen]

The underlined is not an uncommon thing actually. Trauma victims often end up self blaming and convincing themselves it was their fault and whatnot. If you fall into that pit it's really easy to understand that statement.

Hmm, then that would make sense though I'm holding my breath: I would like to see if a thorough investigation finds anything, that's if they do one.

This whole thing is very weak I agree and certainly not worth removing someone from the ticket over but Democrats have done dumber things in the past

In its current state, no, it doesn't. But if more evidence comes to light, then it could.

Anyway, it looks like the push to have a black woman as Biden's VP is a big factor. Top names are Abrams and Harris, but they come with their liabilities. Other names in consideration are Demings (Florida), Fudge (Ohio), and KLB (Georgia), with the latter getting more of a preference from Rep. Clyburn and honestly is considered my top dark horse pick.

I dont see what more could come to light but who knows.

From those picks I would say Harris or Demings. Demings would probably be the better choice and her seat is safe dem in a special election