2020 US General Election Thread VI: Covid for VP!

[Vassenor]

That thrashing sound you hear is Rose McGowan's career sinking beneath the waves with Tara Reade's accusation.

I wasn't aware Rose McGowan had a career to sink anymore.

She's a bit busy screaming about how investigating these allegations is evidence of cult behaviour among the party.

[Albrenia]

I wasn't aware Rose McGowan had a career to sink anymore.

She's a bit busy screaming about how investigating these allegations is evidence of cult behaviour among the party.

Wouldn't not investigating them be the cultist thing to do though?

[Valrifell]

If you're so fixated on Biden's case, why don't you look at the tons of Trump sexual assault cases?

We did. In 2016. And I haven't forgotten. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna get dragged into some pathetic game of "who raped the most?" to see which rapist is the most electorally tolerable.

You don't really have to do that, considering you live jn Argentina. You can just call both candidates rapists for freee

[Valrifell]

We also have a new poll for May.

No idea who Biden will pick, but unless he picks Sanders for his VP he's not getting my vote. And I highly doubt Biden would pick Sanders.

Sanders is such a bad choice for VP for a plethora of reasons, that your insistant you want him there reveals to me you care more about the man than anything he actually stands for. The movement is bigger than him and you've displayed an unwillingness to understand that.

[Ifreann]

Do you want Bernie Sanders to go the way of a Walter Mondale or Ted Kennedy?

Bernie has helped move the Democratic Party leftward. That legacy itself is much more valuable than the Vice Presidency or a Cabinet post.

Problem is some people have apparently decided that Bernie not being in one of the big two seats apparently kills progressive politics forever somehow.

Those people specifically being the shared imagination of you and a few other posters, who just will not shut up about Sanders.

[Valrifell]

Problem is some people have apparently decided that Bernie not being in one of the big two seats apparently kills progressive politics forever somehow.

Those people specifically being the shared imagination of you and a few other posters, who just will not shut up about Sanders.

I've been reminded that Blargoblarg is quite real.

[Ifreann]

Those people specifically being the shared imagination of you and a few other posters, who just will not shut up about Sanders.

I've been reminded that Blargoblarg is quite real.

"Not getting my vote" == "kills all progressive politics forever somehow"?

[Gormwood]

She's a bit busy screaming about how investigating these allegations is evidence of cult behaviour among the party.

Wouldn't not investigating them be the cultist thing to do though?

She's so traumatized by that pig Weinstein it's coloring her perception of the allegation to where Reade's increasingly shaky story isn't a wake up call.

[Cisairse]

Biden's now saying that he would keep our Israeli embassy in Jerusalem as president: https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-says-hed-leave-221537039.html

Makes sense though. Foreign policy, however disagreeable one may find it, is something that has to stay consistent regardless of party politics in the short term.

Flash back to the debate where this question was asked and Warren was the only one to give a clear answer.

If I smell Warren infiltrating Biden's policy platform...I like it.

Interesting. In 2016, the narrative was "A vote for Gary Johnson is basically a vote for the party I don't like!"

This time it seems like both parties are convinced that Justin Amash will actually draw more support away from the opponent's side and assure their own victory.

Meanwhile I just like the fact that Amash hasn't been accused of sexual misconduct. Such a high bar I ask candidates to hop over to to earn my vote.

I think it's been shown that Johnson's candidacy helped Clinton more than it hurt her, but because Trump won the election anyway the narrative of "Clinton lost because {massive list of things}" wins out over rationality.

Trumpsters can drink the kool-aid and believe what the Democrats said about Johnson, implying that Amash will hurt Biden. Democrats, on the other hand, can suddenly claim a moment of clarity and decide that Amash will hurt Trump, like Johnson did.

Now that Howie Hawkins is in a twitter gulag somewhere, the path to victory for Biden is now clearer than it was last month.

[Cisairse]

And now there's claims that Reade's allegations match something in a novel her dad wrote.

Pass the salt for the moment, I suppose.

Isn't this situation itself a premise of the film Knives Out?

[Zurkerx]

We also have a new poll for May.

Ooh, good poll! I would have crammed one more name on there (IE, KLB or Demings), but this list is perfect.

Interesting. In 2016, the narrative was "A vote for Gary Johnson is basically a vote for the party I don't like!"

This time it seems like both parties are convinced that Justin Amash will actually draw more support away from the opponent's side and assure their own victory.

Meanwhile I just like the fact that Amash hasn't been accused of sexual misconduct. Such a high bar I ask candidates to hop over to to earn my vote.

It's tough to say whether Amash will have significant impact or draw significant support from both sides. However, it is nice having a choice other than Biden or Trump.

[Uiiop]

https://twitter.com/NicoleEinbinder/sta ... 1941872641
So biden says to look for a group archives then the place he says to look for them in denies they would have anything from that group. Other relevant people then say they are somewhere else.

*facepalm*
Poor move.

[Kannap]

https://twitter.com/NicoleEinbinder/status/1256216361941872641
So biden says to look for in a group archives then the place he says to look for them denies they would have anything from that group. Other relevant people then say they are somewhere else.

*facepalm*
Poor move.

Yikes

[Valrifell]

https://twitter.com/NicoleEinbinder/status/1256216361941872641
So biden says to look for a group archives then the place he says to look for them in denies they would have anything from that group. Other relevant people then say they are somewhere else.

*facepalm*
Poor move.

Twitter is not a source smh. Did High School English teach you nothing

Either get a primary source or a better secondary source.

[New Socialist South Africa]

The Kavanaugh accusations were rocky as well, I think anyone that the movement would have lost due to that sort of absolutism are already gone. I think that the real danger to the movement is loosing support from politicians who would rather see Biden win over backing the movement.

Compare Ford's testimony to Reade's and you'll see a clear difference between the two.

Alright, lets have a look then:

- A man is up for a powerful position (Supreme Court Justice and President respectively).
- A woman comes forward with allegations that the man sexually assaulted her years ago (in 1982 in the case of Christine Blasey Ford, in 1993 in the case of Tara Reade).
- Multiple friends of both women report that they told them they were sexually assaulted at the time.
- There is some evidence that backs up both women's account, but the evidence isn't conclusive (therapist's notes that Ford claimed she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington", Tara Reade's mother calls in to Larry King in 1993, and talks about how her daughter was working as a staffer for a "prominent senator," and couldn't get through with her "problems")
- Ryan Grim of the Intercept breaks both stories.
- The media pretty rapidly starts reporting on it in the case of Ford, but is a fair deal slower in the case of Reade.
- Both men categorically deny sexually assaulting the women.
- Some people call for an independent investigation into the allegations.
- Party loyalists (Republicans and Democrats respectively) start digging up dirt on the accusers, and start claiming that the claims have no credibility. In the case of Reade, the New York Times explicitly responds by stating that the argument that they said Reade's accusation was not credible is not true, and that they did not find it as either credible or not credible https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/29/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-new-york-times/index.html.
- There is a desperate attempt in both cases to dismiss the allegations as not credible without any investigation, and a desperate attempt to smear both accusers, and to thus imply that they must be lying, because bad people.

Seems pretty damn similar to me. Indeed, the only real difference, other than the media being much slower with Reade's accusation, appears to be that Kavanaugh and Ford held different political ideologies, while Reade is a lifelong Democrat who hates Donald Trump, and thus has absolutely nothing to gain from bringing this story forward now, when Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee against Trump, a man she despises.

Again, that doesn't mean Biden sexually assaulted Reade, OR that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford. It just means that neither case has been proven or disproved. This many years after both alleged instances, we will probably never know for certain if they happened.

I do find it curious that so many people who were dead sure that Kavanaugh definitely assaulted Ford are now dead sure that Biden is totally innocent, as well as how many right wing media folks who were insistent that Kavanaugh is totally innocent are now totally sure that Biden is definitely guilty.

[Uiiop]

https://twitter.com/NicoleEinbinder/status/1256216361941872641
So biden says to look for a group archives then the place he says to look for them in denies they would have anything from that group. Other relevant people then say they are somewhere else.

*facepalm*
Poor move.

Twitter is not a source smh. Did High School English teach you nothing

Either get a primary source or a better secondary source.

Not even a verified account from a journalist? ok then:
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-r ... ims-2020-4

It's paywall but there's a free trial deal and it's repeats what she's saying now

[Valrifell]

Twitter is not a source smh. Did High School English teach you nothing

Either get a primary source or a better secondary source.

Not even a verified account from a journalist? ok then.

So, what, you just trust whatever a blue-checked journalist on Twitter says? How interesting.

[Uiiop]

Not even a verified account from a journalist? ok then.

So, what, you just trust whatever a blue-checked journalist on Twitter says? How interesting.

I linked the article in an edit.
Everyone seems to trust BI's reporting on this case and i don't see why that changes now.

[Valrifell]

So, what, you just trust whatever a blue-checked journalist on Twitter says? How interesting.

I linked the article in an edit.
Everyone seems to trust BI's reporting on this case and i don't see why that changes now.

See, now you're conflating my distrust of your twitter link with distrust of BI's reporting. I trust articles more than a character limited tweet because articles can explain things better and are generally looked over by more than one person.

I've no idea why you wouldn't just start from the article.

[Kannap]

https://twitter.com/NicoleEinbinder/status/1256216361941872641
So biden says to look for a group archives then the place he says to look for them in denies they would have anything from that group. Other relevant people then say they are somewhere else.

*facepalm*
Poor move.

Twitter is not a source smh. Did High School English teach you nothing

Either get a primary source or a better secondary source.

She's a reporter for Business Insider.

She links an article of hers at the end of the thread: https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-r ... ims-2020-4

I assume the Twitter thread is a TL;DR of the article but I haven't read the article yet so don't take my word for it

[Uiiop]

I linked the article in an edit.
Everyone seems to trust BI's reporting on this case and i don't see why that changes now.

See, now you're conflating my distrust of your twitter link with distrust of BI's reporting. I trust articles more than a character limited tweet because articles can explain things better and are generally looked over by more than one person.

I've no idea why you wouldn't just start from the article.

I didn't know you'll distrust twitter that much and why. Now i know and concede that's fair. I will use alternative links next time.

[Valrifell]

The article mentions that the Biden campaign didn't comment on the story and that it was some staffer for some other office that told them to check the Archive group (which didn't have the info they wanted).

So I'm confused. Nevertheless, the article notes the records do exist but won't be released in the 2040s for, I don't know, reasons I guess. There's also notes that could confirm or disprove the allegations somewhere in a musty archive of the University of Delaware but it seems only Biden can give direct permission to open them up early, and considering the archive is physical and the university is closed that's not going to happen until the pandemic blows over.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Compare Ford's testimony to Reade's and you'll see a clear difference between the two.

Alright, lets have a look then:

- A man is up for a powerful position (Supreme Court Justice and President respectively).
- A woman comes forward with allegations that the man sexually assaulted her years ago (in 1982 in the case of Christine Blasey Ford, in 1993 in the case of Tara Reade).
- Multiple friends of both women report that they told them they were sexually assaulted at the time.
- There is some evidence that backs up both women's account, but the evidence isn't conclusive (therapist's notes that Ford claimed she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington", Tara Reade's mother calls in to Larry King in 1993, and talks about how her daughter was working as a staffer for a "prominent senator," and couldn't get through with her "problems")
- Ryan Grim of the Intercept breaks both stories.
- The media pretty rapidly starts reporting on it in the case of Ford, but is a fair deal slower in the case of Reade.
- Both men categorically deny sexually assaulting the women.
- Some people call for an independent investigation into the allegations.
- Party loyalists (Republicans and Democrats respectively) start digging up dirt on the accusers, and start claiming that the claims have no credibility. In the case of Reade, the New York Times explicitly responds by stating that the argument that they said Reade's accusation was not credible is not true, and that they did not find it as either credible or not credible https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/29/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-new-york-times/index.html.
- There is a desperate attempt in both cases to dismiss the allegations as not credible without any investigation, and a desperate attempt to smear both accusers, and to thus imply that they must be lying, because bad people.

Seems pretty damn similar to me. Indeed, the only real difference, other than the media being much slower with Reade's accusation, appears to be that Kavanaugh and Ford held different political ideologies, while Reade is a lifelong Democrat who hates Donald Trump, and thus has absolutely nothing to gain from bringing this story forward now, when Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee against Trump, a man she despises.

Again, that doesn't mean Biden sexually assaulted Reade, OR that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford. It just means that neither case has been proven or disproved. This many years after both alleged instances, we will probably never know for certain if they happened.

I do find it curious that so many people who were dead sure that Kavanaugh definitely assaulted Ford are now dead sure that Biden is totally innocent, as well as how many right wing media folks who were insistent that Kavanaugh is totally innocent are now totally sure that Biden is definitely guilty.

Golly gee, it's almost like American politics are a cancer.

[Zurkerx]

The article mentions that the Biden campaign didn't comment on the story and that it was some staffer for some other office that told them to check the Archive group (which didn't have the info they wanted).

So I'm confused. Nevertheless, the article notes the records do exist but won't be released in the 2040s for, I don't know, reasons I guess. There's also notes that could confirm or disprove the allegations somewhere in a musty archive of the University of Delaware but it seems only Biden can give direct permission to open them up early, and considering the archive is physical and the university is closed that's not going to happen until the pandemic blows over.

The 50 year thing is a reference to Senate Resolution 474:

Resolved, That any records of the Senate or any committee of the Senate which are transferred to the General Services Administration under rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate and section 2114 of title 44, United States Code, and which have been made public prior to their transfer may be made available for public use.

Sec. 2. (a) Subject to such rules or regulations as the Secretary of the Senate may prescribe, any other records of the Senate or any committee of the Senate which are so transferred may be made available for public use--

(1) in the case of investigative files relating to individuals and containing personal data, personnel records, and records of executive nominations, when such files and records have been in existence for fifty years; and
(2) in the case of all other such records, when such records have been in existence for twenty years.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), any committee of the Senate may, by action of the full committee, prescribe a different time when any of its records may be made available for public use, under specific conditions to be fixed by such committee, by giving notice thereof to the Secretary of the Senate and the Administrator of General Services.

Sec. 3.(a) This resolution shall not be construed to authorize the public disclosure of any record so transferred if such disclosure is prohibited by law or Executive order of the President.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2, the Secretary of the Senate may prohibit or restrict the public disclosure of any record so transferred, other than any record of a Senate committee, if he determines that public disclosure of such record would not be in the public interest and so notifies the Administrator of General Services.

Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Administrator of General Services.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Alright, lets have a look then:

- A man is up for a powerful position (Supreme Court Justice and President respectively).
- A woman comes forward with allegations that the man sexually assaulted her years ago (in 1982 in the case of Christine Blasey Ford, in 1993 in the case of Tara Reade).
- Multiple friends of both women report that they told them they were sexually assaulted at the time.
- There is some evidence that backs up both women's account, but the evidence isn't conclusive (therapist's notes that Ford claimed she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington", Tara Reade's mother calls in to Larry King in 1993, and talks about how her daughter was working as a staffer for a "prominent senator," and couldn't get through with her "problems")
- Ryan Grim of the Intercept breaks both stories.
- The media pretty rapidly starts reporting on it in the case of Ford, but is a fair deal slower in the case of Reade.
- Both men categorically deny sexually assaulting the women.
- Some people call for an independent investigation into the allegations.
- Party loyalists (Republicans and Democrats respectively) start digging up dirt on the accusers, and start claiming that the claims have no credibility. In the case of Reade, the New York Times explicitly responds by stating that the argument that they said Reade's accusation was not credible is not true, and that they did not find it as either credible or not credible https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/29/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-new-york-times/index.html.
- There is a desperate attempt in both cases to dismiss the allegations as not credible without any investigation, and a desperate attempt to smear both accusers, and to thus imply that they must be lying, because bad people.

Seems pretty damn similar to me. Indeed, the only real difference, other than the media being much slower with Reade's accusation, appears to be that Kavanaugh and Ford held different political ideologies, while Reade is a lifelong Democrat who hates Donald Trump, and thus has absolutely nothing to gain from bringing this story forward now, when Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee against Trump, a man she despises.

Again, that doesn't mean Biden sexually assaulted Reade, OR that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford. It just means that neither case has been proven or disproved. This many years after both alleged instances, we will probably never know for certain if they happened.

I do find it curious that so many people who were dead sure that Kavanaugh definitely assaulted Ford are now dead sure that Biden is totally innocent, as well as how many right wing media folks who were insistent that Kavanaugh is totally innocent are now totally sure that Biden is definitely guilty.

Golly gee, it's almost like American politics are is a cancer.

I fixed that for you