Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[fwc577]

just curious are you from britian? because the only people in the u.s. i see use that language are 15 yr olds trying to be edgy and homophobes. either that or your 120 or so yrs old when they still used that term.

I became a teenager in the mid-to-late 90s. There was no homophobia, it had no meaning to me and it was just a word.

[beanman12345]

I think it's actually kind of the opposite. I'll paraphrase a tweet I read: it'll siphon off two potential groups of Biden voters:

1) Conservatives disgusted by Trump who don't want to vote for him,
and
2) people with no ideology who see a chance to feel special by voting for neither party.


My personal opinion, the 2nd group were probably going to vote 3rd party or not vote at all, but there's more of a non-insignificant portion of potential Biden voters there than Trump voters, who are more locked in.

If group 1 vote third party or don't vote, that is good for Biden, Biden shouldn't have need for them. Group 2 is more concerning, but you are right, they wouldn't vote either main party anyways.

[eschatological]

I became a teenager in the mid-to-late 90s. There was no homophobia, it had no meaning to me and it was just a word.

I too, grew up in the 90s, and there was lots of homophobia. In fact, a teenager in Oklahoma was tied to a fence and stoned to death in the 90s, for being gay. Not Saudi Arabia - Oklahoma.

Edit: Just to be clear: I never used homophobic slurs in the 90s. I knew it was wrong, even then.....and I'm a straight, cis male.

[Themius]

She literally turned the reveal of her 'survivor story' into a Bernie Sanders ad.

"I was sexually assaulted by Biden! #BernieSanders2020#NotMeUs"



That should tell you just about all you need to know about her credibility.

---

As an aside, leftist are being hypocrites about this woman compared to Ford and I am glad the #MeToo movement is tearing itself apart over it... I am tired of #BelieveWomen bullshit. If your only evidence of some alleged assault against you decades ago is your word then fuck off.

If you get sexually assaulted, go to the police so evidence can be collected.

Your word, or anyone's word alone means absolutely fucking nothing to me.

You can’t hold the “she’s a farce
” and “leftist are hypocrites” as two arguments. If she’s a farce what the fuck is hypocritical

[Theodarzna]

There are plot holes in her story especially given that Biden was VP for 8 years and she didn't lack opportunity to out him but instead supported him. My stance is still the same for a fair investigation on the matter but as stated before it's impossible under this administration.

You've disagreed with Trump on some subjects and called him out when you feel uncomfortable but you've spent the last 4 years being very supportive of his nationalist platform and attacked anything from the left. I maybe mistaken but not too long ago you were calling Warren a Neo liberal or something to that affect.

There are as many holes, slightly less, than there is with Ford's story, and the fact that the two stories are treated radically differently by the #MeToo crowd is important.

But again, when it was Ford? Asking "Why Now" was sexist and rape apologia and damaging to women. Now, its suddenly okay to do this when its Your Guy, heck its even okay to put forward a 30 year conspiracy set up in the early 1990's by Moscow to discredit Biden in the off chance he runs for office and that Reade is some sleeper agent or whatever dog whistle innuendo is on offer here; ironic given it sounds an awful lot like saying "Someone who says something nice about Russians can't be raped" which is a bit odd.

And so far, idk why this administration matters? She didn't go to Trump to investigate it; she went to #MeToo orgs and then the very Left-Wing Intercept and Ryan god damn Grim who also ran the Ford story back then. And why WHY would it be better investigated under Biden given Biden is the person accused? Like Biden's administration will be very trustworthy to investigate an accusation against itself for rape? What does the current president have to even do with it?

And as for "Attacking the Left", I've defended Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders and have only a "They weren't strong enough" or "made some policy mistakes but still good", it is hard to say I've attacked "The Left" in some broad sense. Unless to you the Left is whatever Neera Tanden says it is or its exclusively some totalizing package, I've critiqued some things about Lefty or I'd even say Pseudo-Lefty culture. I've even suggested a lot of those people are really just basic Liberals but LARP as Leftists and aren't the real thing.

And yes, I correctly called Warren essentially Neo-Liberal in her politics and explained how that was the case and that her whole efforts were damaging to the movement people claimed she was for. Hell, I'm not even alone on that take, one can look to the Intercept, The Hill, Jacobin ect for that take. And yeah, I'm not in favor of Open Borders and favor a way stricter form of immigration law, and don't like Free Trade agreements, I also don't like getting involved in foreign wars, and chastised Trump for warmongering against Iran. Because I, unlike some people in this thread, am not a partisan simply mindlessly cheering for MY TEAM like I'm a moderator of /r/pyonyang. So your big stink is "You don't agree with Liberals!" which means what exactly? What exactly do you want? Because we've utterly obliterated this "You are a TRUMPSTER!" shite, and I'm clearly not a big time Republican as I've called out warmongering and free marketeering and mainly am supportive of them when they outflank from the Left on economics (Like Romney talking big checks with no strings versus Kamala Harris' means tested 500 bucks). Heck, is it wrong to support and be happy when someone does something you want? Like imagine tomorrow Donald Trump announced, he was going to adopt one for one the entire Bernie Sanders platform and Mitch McConnall said "Yup, thats what we are going to do"; what.... are you going to come out against Universal Healthcare because Trump in this scenario came out swinging for it?

If you are looking for a loyal dutiful partisan whose love for the Democratic Party is unshakable, and for whom doubt in the party and its establishment is beyond the very possibility of consideration, the world is filled with loyal unflinching party partisans. I'm not out to sound like a moderator for /r/pyonyang but for the DNC establishment.

If this is the content you want me to post, I apologize, this just isn't my perspective. But hey, you at least acknowledge some facts about me, that is a start.

[Themius]

There are as many holes, slightly less, than there is with Ford's story, and the fact that the two stories are treated radically differently by the #MeToo crowd is important.

But again, when it was Ford? Asking "Why Now" was sexist and rape apologia and damaging to women. Now, its suddenly okay to do this when its Your Guy, heck its even okay to put forward a 30 year conspiracy set up in the early 1990's by Moscow to discredit Biden in the off chance he runs for office and that Reade is some sleeper agent or whatever dog whistle innuendo is on offer here; ironic given it sounds an awful lot like saying "Someone who says something nice about Russians can't be raped" which is a bit odd.

And so far, idk why this administration matters? She didn't go to Trump to investigate it; she went to #MeToo orgs and then the very Left-Wing Intercept and Ryan god damn Grim who also ran the Ford story back then. And why WHY would it be better investigated under Biden given Biden is the person accused? Like Biden's administration will be very trustworthy to investigate an accusation against itself for rape? What does the current president have to even do with it?

And as for "Attacking the Left", I've defended Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders to a fault, it is hard to say I've attacked "The Left" in some broad sense. Unless to you the Left is whatever Neera Tanden says it is or its exclusively some totalizing package, I've critiqued some things about Lefty or I'd even say Pseudo-Lefty culture. I've even suggested a lot of those people are really just basic Liberals but LARP as Leftists and aren't the real thing.

And yes, I correctly called Warren essentially Neo-Liberal in her politics and explained how that was the case and that her whole efforts were damaging to the movement people claimed she was for. Hell, I'm not even alone on that take, one can look to the Intercept, The Hill, Jacobin ect for that take. And yeah, I'm not in favor of Open Borders and favor a way stricter form of immigration law, and don't like Free Trade agreements, I also don't like getting involved in foreign wars, and chastised Trump for warmongering against Iran. Because I, unlike some people in this thread, am not a partisan simply mindlessly cheering for MY TEAM like I'm a moderator of /r/pyonyang. So your big stink is "You don't agree with Liberals!" which means what exactly? What exactly do you want? Because we've utterly obliterated this "You are a TRUMPSTER!" shite, and I'm clearly not a big time Republican as I've called out warmongering and free marketeering and mainly am supportive of them when they outflank from the Left on economics (Like Romney talking big checks with no strings versus Kamala Harris' means tested 500 bucks). Heck, is it wrong to support and be happy when someone does something you want? Like imagine tomorrow Donald Trump announced, he was going to adopt one for one the entire Bernie Sanders platform and Mitch McConnall said "Yup, thats what we are going to do"; what.... are you going to come out against Universal Healthcare because Trump in this scenario came out swinging for it?

If you are looking for a loyal dutiful partisan whose love for the Democratic Party is unshakable, and for whom doubt in the party and its establishment is beyond the very possibility of consideration, the world is filled with loyal unflinching party partisans. I'm not out to sound like a moderator for /r/pyonyang but for the DNC establishment.

If this is the content you want me to post, I apologize, this just isn't my perspective. But hey, you at least acknowledge some facts about me, that is a start.

Holes in ford story what holes were those? Odd how ford supposedly has more Holes yet republicans found her credible. Hey there was even a second accuser. With witnesses.

[Dacien]

You can't make this stuff up.

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/sta...43826568466434

[Theodarzna]

You can't make this stuff up.

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/sta...43826568466434

Stacy Abrams is a weird cat, she is so thirsty to be VP, she even is going around DC hitting up donors and other influences to make her the VP. Is there precedent for people pulling this kinda shit? And has anyone this outwardly desperate to be VP actually managed to get themselves on the ticket?

- - - Updated - - -

Holes in ford story what holes were those? Odd how ford supposedly has more Holes yet republicans found her credible. Hey there was even a second accuser. With witnesses.

You keep harping on Republicans like I give a single crap or ascribe any credibility to "Republicans". I am unsure why you feel like that is convincing that some Republicans found her credible?

She had three witnesses, and the main one at the time can't recall her being there and later stated that she felt pressured and bullied by Ford's team to back her story. Also number of accusers doesn't matter really unless this is some Whataboutery, which is contingent on an acknowledgement that Biden's accuser is telling the truth.

I just find your hilarious 180 turn on the whole rape accusations and if we should believe them to be really funny, in a sad, "Oh it really was just partisan preening" kinda way.

[Themius]

Stacy Abrams is a weird cat, she is so thirsty to be VP, she even is going around DC hitting up donors and other influences to make her the VP. Is there precedent for people pulling this kinda shit? And has anyone this outwardly desperate to be VP actually managed to get themselves on the ticket?

- - - Updated - - -



You keep harping on Republicans like I give a single crap or ascribe any credibility to "Republicans". I am unsure why you feel like that is convincing that some Republicans found her credible?

She had three witnesses, and the main one at the time can't recall her being there and later stated that she felt pressured and bullied by Ford's team to back her story. Also number of accusers doesn't matter really unless this is some Whataboutery, which is contingent on an acknowledgement that Biden's accuser is telling the truth.

I just find your hilarious 180 turn on the whole rape accusations and if we should believe them to be really funny, in a sad, "Oh it really was just partisan preening" kinda way.

You’re completely full of it the “believe all women” was never a thing I said yet you keep pretending and lying that I have. I find Tara not credible because of her own fucking words and actions this isn’t about partisanship the woman isn’t credible. The woman changed her story. And applauded Biden recently for his great work... when he started praising Russia and republicans and odd shit is when suddenly Biden was a baddy.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't make this stuff up.

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/sta...43826568466434

This is a stupid tweet considering bidens camp literally said to investigate. And magically no one has shit. No MSM on any side has anything.

[Blur4stuff]

Biden always reminded me of those old school guys that believed it was perfectly fine to touch people (not necessarily in a sexual way). The creepy attack obviously works for some people, but it's the same shit I had to put up with while growing up not just from men but women too. Again, not sexual stuff.

[Dacien]

Stacy Abrams is a weird cat, she is so thirsty to be VP, she even is going around DC hitting up donors and other influences to make her the VP. Is there precedent for people pulling this kinda shit? And has anyone this outwardly desperate to be VP actually managed to get themselves on the ticket?

Yeah it is a little over the top, the reports I'm reading. Thirsty is right.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed. Anyone that bothers to even read your posts at this point deserves the merry-go-round you offer.


The absolute state of this thread. I know people are stuck at home, for the most part, but some of you need hobbies that don't include constantly replying to complete and utter shite.

I could link you the procedure. I don't know if I'd be allowed to show the pictures of the aftermath. I find this repeated denial of easily verifiable information to be absolutely bizarre; you're not the only one. I feel like if you're on that side of the issue, you sort of have to numb yourself. I'm going to assume that's what's going on.

[jonnysensible]

Biden always reminded me of those old school guys that believed it was perfectly fine to touch people (not necessarily in a sexual way). The creepy attack obviously works for some people, but it's the same shit I had to put up with while growing up not just from men but women too. Again, not sexual stuff.

I thought Fintan O Toole got him right back in January:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200114...nated-mourner/

would recommend reading it, thats the link to avoid the paywall.

With Biden, fellow feeling is literal—he feels you. He is astonishingly, overwhelmingly hands-on. He extended the backslapping of the old Irish pol into whole new areas of the body—hugging, embracing, rubbing. In his foreword to Steven Levingston’s engaging account of the Biden–Obama relationship, Barack and Joe, Michael Eric Dyson writes of the vice president’s “reinforcing his sublimely subordinate position by occasionally massaging the boss’s shoulders.” But Cramer noted Biden doing the same thing to an anonymous woman at a campaign stop in 1987: “Gently, but decidedly, he put his hands on her. In Council Bluffs, Iowa! He got both hands onto her shoulders, while he talked to the crowd over her head, like it was her and him, through thick and thin.” So not really a gesture of submission or of domination, perhaps, but a desperate hunger to connect, to touch and be touched, to both console and be consoled. “The act of consoling,” Biden writes, “had always made me feel a little better, and I was hungry to feel better.”

There is something religious in this laying-on of hands. It is an act of communion. But it is also profoundly problematic—and not just for the obvious reason that, in the Me Too era, touching is too apt to raise questions of gender, power, and consent that clearly did not occur to Biden in Council Bluffs or anywhere else. It too easily depoliticizes pain. To see how this can play out in practice, consider a phone call Biden made to Anita Hill in October 1991. Clarence Thomas had been nominated to the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush. Biden, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was in charge of the process. Hill had written, in confidence, an account of Thomas’s sexual harassment of her. Biden was calling her to invite her formally to testify at a hastily arranged public hearing. Hill was worried about whether she would be protected from verbal assault and whether witnesses who came forward to express similar concerns about Thomas would also be heard. Here is Hill’s account:

“The only mistake I made, in my view, is to not realize how much pressure you were under. I should have been more aware,” Senator Biden confessed over the telephone line. “…Aw kiddo I feel for you. I wish I weren’t the chairman, I’d come to be your lawyer,” he added when I told him I had not secured legal counsel. I fought the urge to respond as I furiously took notes of our conversation, hoping for some useful information. Little concrete information was forthcoming. As he closed the conversation, I could almost see him flashing his instant smile to convince both of us that the experience would be agreeable.4

“Aw kiddo I feel for you” is pure Biden. If he could have reached through the telephone, he would surely have massaged Hill’s shoulders. There is no reason to think he was disingenuous. The problem is that he felt for Clarence Thomas too. As Witcover puts it, “Joe seemed to be trying to convince both the judge and his female adversary that he was their friend.” After receiving Hill’s written allegations but before she testified, Biden went to the Senate floor to say that “for this senator, there is no question with respect to the nominee’s character…I believe there are certain things that are not an issue at all.” He then failed to call the two women who could corroborate Hill’s testimony, Rose Jourdain and Angela Wright, to appear before his committee. Feeling is not enough: there were great questions of gender and power and the nature of public deliberation at play in the Thomas hearings, and “aw kiddo” was a brutally inadequate answer to any of them.

[Theodarzna]

You’re completely full of it the “believe all women” was never a thing I said yet you keep pretending and lying that I have. I find Tara not credible because of her own fucking words and actions this isn’t about partisanship the woman isn’t credible. The woman changed her story. And applauded Biden recently for his great work... when he started praising Russia and republicans and odd shit is when suddenly Biden was a baddy.

Ah, you are right, I shouldn't summarize your words or paraphrase so solely, because you are right, you never said nor do you stand by "Believe all Woman". Let us review what you do believe and have said on the matter of rape apologia.

A strong stance here, someone is accusing Biden and your first thought is "Oh, that poor guy, being accused of rape. They're probably lying" hell, you aren't even saying probably, you are firmly in the "This is fake" camp.

"Oh that poor guy, being accused of rape. They're probably lying!" and not "wow, they must be one of the very few to actually come forward"

Wow, dragging people through the mud when they come forward sure was something you were formerly against, I guess that only applies when its politically convenient. If it your party and your parties guy, well then we drag the bitch right? She is a liar, attention whore, an evil Putin asset, its all a Moscow plot! Ha! Good stuff. I almost feel like your posts from 2018 were actually addressed to your future self, its surreal almost.

What about the women and men who are dragged through the mud. I mean for fuck sakes we just had a rapist go free because the judge thought he wouldn't have been aided by going to prison. What about the fucking victim?

As for the issue of timing, Old Themius had a different view of the matter:

So rape victims shouldn't come forward if the timing isn't good for their rapist? Got it.

Back in 2018 you didn't even feel a lot of evidence was necessary, heck most rapes don't even have evidence according to you.

So this is where we are:

We know that most people don't report rape, we know most rapes don't end in convictions. Like I guess we can't believe Reade because she can't show a tape or something; I guess she got finger banged but there is nothing we can do, because Themius has reversed course and we need some stringent evidence now.

We also know there is little evidence of rape except in very few cases.

So what do we do? "Ah well...you got raped nothing we can do." Is what I'm getting, and is why I never reported anything when I got older.

I guess we castigate them, we castigate them to go get video proof since that is the only proof New Themius will accept.

mmhm so what do we do?

If a person comes forward castigate them and say go get video proof? Because that's what it feels like.

Here, I guess Old Themius would have sympathized with Reade waiting. You know, rape is so emotionally devastating, people go years, decades without reporting it, and its not for us to question them, that was Old Themius, now new Themius really is curious why Reade waited so long.

it is the case, but we know that rape is an extremely emotionally destroying crime that goes unreported sometimes for decades. I never reported, I am in the majority.

Heck, lets look at the credibility question, you used to say that is a canard to hurt women and victimize the abused victims, but not anymore. I guess credibility matters, and if you aren't credible then its impossible you can get raped. Old Themius was pretty sure the credibility question was irrelevant.

The entire thing about was about credibility. A prostitute often isn't credible, and their rapes do get thrown out pretty frequently. Meanwhile prostitutes are among one of the most sexually abused groups.

So you are right, you don't "Believe all Women" you "Believe all Women that are politically convenient to believe".

I wonder what Old Themius would say about New Themius castigating this woman and calling her a lair and a fraud.

There is no proof of that. Often in cases with he said she said, he wins the case. She gets castigated, and her entire character is called into question. Juries also feel a skank often deserves what she got because "well what did you expect" especially in conservative areas.

Or:

How do we encourage victims to go forward when they seem people who do treated like utter shit?

The mental damage is very real and it seems that just goes ignored.

So, you might try and say "I'm only for everyone getting a fair investigation", well what is a fair investigation? Trial by media? Trial by journalists? Which journalists do we trust as our judges of the Tara Reade story? Is Ryan Grim untrustworthy now but wasn't during the Christine Blaisy Ford? Is The Hill trustworthy or untrustworthy? Can we ask a reporters partisan affiliations? Is being a Biden voter suspicious or trustworthy in this instance? And what of Biden? Do we tell him to suspend his campaign until a fair trial can be attained? Seemed to be what a lot of people said about ol' Brett, yeah know it is a job interview I guess. And what sort of trail? Preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?

[breadisfunny]

I became a teenager in the mid-to-late 90s. There was no homophobia, it had no meaning to me and it was just a word.

did you even read what I wrote? you must have been a pretty naive teenager to think it had no homophobia attached to it.

[eschatological]

-snip-

There are significant distinctions in the timing.

Blasey-Ford stepped forward publicly when Kavanaugh was up for a role of national prominence. Even when he was made a U.S. Appeals Court Judge in D.C. in 2004, across the country from where she lived, where he had no possible influence over her day to day life, she talked about it privately to her therapist. Which was seen as credible. And as soon as he was nominated for the Supreme Court, she stepped forward.

On the other hand, Biden has been in national prominence since Tara Reade has known him. She, in fact, worked for him while he was a sitting U.S. Senator and a major player in the Democratic Party. He ran for President in 2008, she didn't come out then - maybe because he was a long shot. But then he was named as VP to the ticket. She said nothing, and, in fact, supported the ticket. Then, when he declared he was running for 2020, and was the early presumptive frontrunner, she said nothing. When polls came out, putting him as the frontrunner, she said nothing. And then when her preferred candidate, Bernie, dropped out after being virtually eliminated from the race....that's when she spoke up.

Nevermind the intervening years between 2008 and 2018, when she suddenly became very pro-Russia, lauding Putin as an admirable leader, and suddenly changed her political leanings quite drastically, when all indications were she was actually a fairly moderate Dem.

That's why, before the Larry King thing, it seemed like she had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less credibility than Blasey-Ford.

Reade's credibility was very poor before the actual video evidence from Larry King, of something that probably indicates Reade felt harassment in Biden's office in '93, and told her mother about it, but never even insinuated assault. That is serious, and credible information. And people are looking into it now, since it only came out this past week.

- - - Updated - - -

As an aside, I have seen one local Bernie supporter I know declare he's psyched that Justin Amash is running, and said, "Finally, someone I can vote for!"

Justin Amash, former Tea Partier, founder of the Freedom Caucus.......that Justin Amash.

[Draco-Onis]

There are as many holes, slightly less, than there is with Ford's story, and the fact that the two stories are treated radically differently by the #MeToo crowd is important.

But again, when it was Ford? Asking "Why Now" was sexist and rape apologia and damaging to women. Now, its suddenly okay to do this when its Your Guy, heck its even okay to put forward a 30 year conspiracy set up in the early 1990's by Moscow to discredit Biden in the off chance he runs for office and that Reade is some sleeper agent or whatever dog whistle innuendo is on offer here; ironic given it sounds an awful lot like saying "Someone who says something nice about Russians can't be raped" which is a bit odd.

The timing is not the main thing it's just that Biden was VP for 8 years, Ford's accusations came out because Kavanaugh was being raised to a national profile for the first time. If you look at my history Biden is hardly my guy, there's also the character problem, Kavanaugh was the bag guy for the GOP he was the guy you go to if you want an legal excuse for torturing people.

And so far, idk why this administration matters? She didn't go to Trump to investigate it; she went to #MeToo orgs and then the very Left-Wing Intercept and Ryan god damn Grim who also ran the Ford story back then. And why WHY would it be better investigated under Biden given Biden is the person accused? Like Biden's administration will be very trustworthy to investigate an accusation against itself for rape? What does the current president have to even do with it?

Because he got impeached for slandering Biden? were you in a coma when he was calling foreign countries to help him win?

And as for "Attacking the Left", I've defended Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders and have only a "They weren't strong enough" or "made some policy mistakes but still good", it is hard to say I've attacked "The Left" in some broad sense. Unless to you the Left is whatever Neera Tanden says it is or its exclusively some totalizing package, I've critiqued some things about Lefty or I'd even say Pseudo-Lefty culture. I've even suggested a lot of those people are really just basic Liberals but LARP as Leftists and aren't the real thing.

Yes you have but only recently as part of your newfound views which doesn't erase your 4 years of strongly defending Trump's policies especially on immigration.

And yes, I correctly called Warren essentially Neo-Liberal in her politics and explained how that was the case and that her whole efforts were damaging to the movement people claimed she was for. Hell, I'm not even alone on that take, one can look to the Intercept, The Hill, Jacobin ect for that take. And yeah, I'm not in favor of Open Borders and favor a way stricter form of immigration law, and don't like Free Trade agreements, I also don't like getting involved in foreign wars, and chastised Trump for warmongering against Iran. Because I, unlike some people in this thread, am not a partisan simply mindlessly cheering for MY TEAM like I'm a moderator of /r/pyonyang. So your big stink is "You don't agree with Liberals!" which means what exactly? What exactly do you want? Because we've utterly obliterated this "You are a TRUMPSTER!" shite, and I'm clearly not a big time Republican as I've called out warmongering and free marketeering and mainly am supportive of them when they outflank from the Left on economics (Like Romney talking big checks with no strings versus Kamala Harris' means tested 500 bucks). Heck, is it wrong to support and be happy when someone does something you want? Like imagine tomorrow Donald Trump announced, he was going to adopt one for one the entire Bernie Sanders platform and Mitch McConnall said "Yup, thats what we are going to do"; what.... are you going to come out against Universal Healthcare because Trump in this scenario came out swinging for it?

Again you are talking about the new you the old you agreed with Trump 80% of the time pretending that you are neutral now is laughable you are basically saying we all imagined the last four years.

If you are looking for a loyal dutiful partisan whose love for the Democratic Party is unshakable, and for whom doubt in the party and its establishment is beyond the very possibility of consideration, the world is filled with loyal unflinching party partisans. I'm not out to sound like a moderator for /r/pyonyang but for the DNC establishment.

If this is the content you want me to post, I apologize, this just isn't my perspective. But hey, you at least acknowledge some facts about me, that is a start.

You spend all these years stating your right wing views I have lost count of the threads you have made attacking liberalism as a form of cancer. I doubt there is a Trump supporter aside from the very devoted that agree with him 100% but your newfound Bernie bro leftist persona is giving most of us whiplash.

[Draco-Onis]

The progressive left has always agreed broadly with Trump on immigration, but from a completely different perspective. Bernie Sanders opposed TPP as Trump did, but on the grounds that it exploited foreign workers and undercut domestic wages, rather than simple racism. This position is relatively common on the far left.

Immigration != trade.

[Draco-Onis]

I am not arguing the merits of the position, I am explaining it. Opposition to immigration is not necessarily a right-wing position.

Except she spent the last four years saying everyone on the left wants open borders and defending the way Trump has treated immigrants.

[Levelfive]

There are significant distinctions in the timing.

Blasey-Ford stepped forward publicly when Kavanaugh was up for a role of national prominence. Even when he was made a U.S. Appeals Court Judge in D.C. in 2004, across the country from where she lived, where he had no possible influence over her day to day life, she talked about it privately to her therapist. Which was seen as credible. And as soon as he was nominated for the Supreme Court, she stepped forward.

On the other hand, Biden has been in national prominence since Tara Reade has known him. She, in fact, worked for him while he was a sitting U.S. Senator and a major player in the Democratic Party. He ran for President in 2008, she didn't come out then - maybe because he was a long shot. But then he was named as VP to the ticket. She said nothing, and, in fact, supported the ticket. Then, when he declared he was running for 2020, and was the early presumptive frontrunner, she said nothing. When polls came out, putting him as the frontrunner, she said nothing. And then when her preferred candidate, Bernie, dropped out after being virtually eliminated from the race....that's when she spoke up.

Nevermind the intervening years between 2008 and 2018, when she suddenly became very pro-Russia, lauding Putin as an admirable leader, and suddenly changed her political leanings quite drastically, when all indications were she was actually a fairly moderate Dem.

That's why, before the Larry King thing, it seemed like she had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less credibility than Blasey-Ford.

Reade's credibility was very poor before the actual video evidence from Larry King, of something that probably indicates Reade felt harassment in Biden's office in '93, and told her mother about it, but never even insinuated assault. That is serious, and credible information. And people are looking into it now, since it only came out this past week.

- - - Updated - - -

As an aside, I have seen one local Bernie supporter I know declare he's psyched that Justin Amash is running, and said, "Finally, someone I can vote for!"

Justin Amash, former Tea Partier, founder of the Freedom Caucus.......that Justin Amash.

I'm glad someone finally addressed Theo's lie that Ford had no corroborating evidence in the form of having told people about it years prior:

"WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford say they have submitted sworn affidavits to the Senate Judiciary Committee from four people who say she told them that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had assaulted her in high school.

Kavanaugh has denied the accusation.

The four sworn affidavits are among the information the committee is considering on the eve of Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimony Thursday.

All four documents say that Ford revealed the information well before President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the high court in July. They come from Ford’s husband and three family friends, who say Ford mentioned the incident in 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017.

Two affidavits, from Ford’s husband Russell Ford and from the coach of their son’s baseball team, say Ford named Kavanaugh as the alleged assailant. In the other two, Ford did not name Kavanaugh but said she was assaulted by a federal judge."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-backing-claim

According to Theo herself, that means you either have to believe Ford, or be accusing her of a "[years'] long conspiracy...to discredit [Kavanaugh]...in the off chance he['s ever nominated to the Supreme Court]." So I guess Theo believes Ford, after all.

Of course, Theo is also on record as having admitted she doesn't give a shit about this stuff, so true to form, her investment in the topic is nothing more than a nearby cudgel to try to wield against people on the left, in what seems to be an obsessive campaign. On a side note, if you do a search here for "believe all women," it's almost exclusively in accusatory posts by people on the right, mostly Theo, with people on the left explaining why it's not a good approach--as with any accusation, it should be taken seriously and evaluated on a case by case basis. "Believe all women" is a right-wing strawman that evolved out of a more general "believe women," which always meant: take sexual assault claims seriously--not at the expense of facts or reason--perhaps as an alternative and small measure of redress for immediately calling them lying whores for the history of human civilization.

Most of these cases are not going to be tried in court so each of us is left to be a juror in the court of public opinion, evaluating on a case by case basis what "rings true" for each of us. I found Christine Blasey Ford's accusations credible; I find many of Trump's accusers credible (I only stipulate 'many' because I have not familiarized myself with all 47 or whatever we're up to now); I found accusations against Al Franken and Roy Moore credible, as well as those against that porn star from a few years back that we had huge discussion about here, and the primary reason is that they were all part of an ongoing pattern across many years and many women. The accusations against Biden go something like: hair sniffing, hair sniffing, shoulder rubbing with hair sniffing, out-of-the-blue unwanted finger fucking, which is to say, rape, then hair sniffing / shoulder rubbing for the next 30 years. That does not ring true to me.

Ford, as a teenager, was motivated to stay silent--she didn't want her parents to know she'd been at a party with boys and alcohol, among other reasons; she didn't even intend for it to become public--she wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein in confidence; Reade, on the other hand, was motivated to explain at the time why she'd been fired.

Biden's long-time assistant, to whom Reade said she had complained, said:

"I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone,” she said. “I have absolutely no knowledge or memory of Ms. Reade’s accounting of events, which would have left a searing impression on me as a woman professional, and as a manager.” That rings true to me. I don't, however, find Biden's team's protestations that he authored the Violence Against Women's Act relevant, compelling, or remotely exculpatory in any way.

I do find it really really bizarre that Reade would have "retweeted praise for Mr. Biden and his work combating sexual assault." That one is very tough for me to square--I'm not sure how you could do that with that memory in your head.

In all of these cases, my doubt or belief is provisional, pending new evidence, because I take women seriously, not at the expense of facts or reason.

[Themius]

Ah, you are right, I shouldn't summarize your words or paraphrase so solely, because you are right, you never said nor do you stand by "Believe all Woman". Let us review what you do believe and have said on the matter of rape apologia.

A strong stance here, someone is accusing Biden and your first thought is "Oh, that poor guy, being accused of rape. They're probably lying" hell, you aren't even saying probably, you are firmly in the "This is fake" camp.


Wow, dragging people through the mud when they come forward sure was something you were formerly against, I guess that only applies when its politically convenient. If it your party and your parties guy, well then we drag the bitch right? She is a liar, attention whore, an evil Putin asset, its all a Moscow plot! Ha! Good stuff. I almost feel like your posts from 2018 were actually addressed to your future self, its surreal almost.


As for the issue of timing, Old Themius had a different view of the matter:


Back in 2018 you didn't even feel a lot of evidence was necessary, heck most rapes don't even have evidence according to you.


I guess we castigate them, we castigate them to go get video proof since that is the only proof New Themius will accept.


Here, I guess Old Themius would have sympathized with Reade waiting. You know, rape is so emotionally devastating, people go years, decades without reporting it, and its not for us to question them, that was Old Themius, now new Themius really is curious why Reade waited so long.


Heck, lets look at the credibility question, you used to say that is a canard to hurt women and victimize the abused victims, but not anymore. I guess credibility matters, and if you aren't credible then its impossible you can get raped. Old Themius was pretty sure the credibility question was irrelevant.


So you are right, you don't "Believe all Women" you "Believe all Women that are politically convenient to believe".

I wonder what Old Themius would say about New Themius castigating this woman and calling her a lair and a fraud.


Or:


So, you might try and say "I'm only for everyone getting a fair investigation", well what is a fair investigation? Trial by media? Trial by journalists? Which journalists do we trust as our judges of the Tara Reade story? Is Ryan Grim untrustworthy now but wasn't during the Christine Blaisy Ford? Is The Hill trustworthy or untrustworthy? Can we ask a reporters partisan affiliations? Is being a Biden voter suspicious or trustworthy in this instance? And what of Biden? Do we tell him to suspend his campaign until a fair trial can be attained? Seemed to be what a lot of people said about ol' Brett, yeah know it is a job interview I guess. And what sort of trail? Preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?

You seem to be ignoring the fact Tara case is being looked into and no one has anything besides a Putin loving Russian asset who has changed her story and praised her supposes attacker.

Prostitute are in a situation where abuse happens frequently Tara is in a situation where she claims something else then claims abuse with several people saying things to the contrary with HER OWN WORDS saying things to the contrary. I mean why are you trying to make her convoluted mess into something? Right wing media can’t even make this stick and Biden has welcomed an investigation unlike someone else.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad someone finally addressed Theo's lie that Ford had no corroborating evidence in the form of having told people about it years prior:

"WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford say they have submitted sworn affidavits to the Senate Judiciary Committee from four people who say she told them that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had assaulted her in high school.

Kavanaugh has denied the accusation.

The four sworn affidavits are among the information the committee is considering on the eve of Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimony Thursday.

All four documents say that Ford revealed the information well before President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the high court in July. They come from Ford’s husband and three family friends, who say Ford mentioned the incident in 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017.

Two affidavits, from Ford’s husband Russell Ford and from the coach of their son’s baseball team, say Ford named Kavanaugh as the alleged assailant. In the other two, Ford did not name Kavanaugh but said she was assaulted by a federal judge."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-backing-claim

According to Theo herself, that means you either have to believe Ford, or be accusing her of a "[years'] long conspiracy...to discredit [Kavanaugh]...in the off chance he['s ever nominated to the Supreme Court]." So I guess Theo believes Ford, after all.

Of course, Theo is also on record as having admitted she doesn't give a shit about this stuff, so true to form, her investment in the topic is nothing more than a nearby cudgel to try to wield against people on the left, in what seems to be an obsessive campaign. On a side note, if you do a search here for "believe all women," it's almost exclusively in accusatory posts by people on the right, mostly Theo, with people on the left explaining why it's not a good approach--as with any accusation, it should be taken seriously and evaluated on a case by case basis. "Believe all women" is a right-wing strawman that evolved out of a more general "believe women," which always meant: take sexual assault claims seriously--not at the expense of facts or reason--perhaps as an alternative and small measure of redress for immediately calling them lying whores for the history of human civilization.

Most of these cases are not going to be tried in court so each of us is left to be a juror in the court of public opinion, evaluating on a case by case basis what "rings true" for each of us. I found Christine Blasey Ford's accusations credible; I find many of Trump's accusers credible (I only stipulate 'many' because I have not familiarized myself with all 47 or whatever we're up to now); I found accusations against Al Franken and Roy Moore credible, as well as those against that porn star from a few years back that we had huge discussion about here, and the primary reason is that they were all part of an ongoing pattern across many years and many women. The accusations against Biden go something like: hair sniffing, hair sniffing, shoulder rubbing with hair sniffing, out-of-the-blue unwanted finger fucking, which is to say, rape, then hair sniffing / shoulder rubbing for the next 30 years. That does not ring true to me.

Ford, as a teenager, was motivated to stay silent--she didn't want her parents to know she'd been at a party with boys and alcohol, among other reasons; she didn't even intend for it to become public--she wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein in confidence; Reade, on the other hand, was motivated to explain at the time why she'd been fired.

Biden's long-time assistant, to whom Reade said she had complained, said:

"I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone,” she said. “I have absolutely no knowledge or memory of Ms. Reade’s accounting of events, which would have left a searing impression on me as a woman professional, and as a manager.” That rings true to me. I don't, however, find Biden's team's protestations that he authored the Violence Against Women's Act relevant, compelling, or remotely exculpatory in any way.

I do find it really really bizarre that Reade would have "retweeted praise for Mr. Biden and his work combating sexual assault." That one is very tough for me to square--I'm not sure how you could do that with that memory in your head.

In all of these cases, my doubt or credulity is provisional, pending new evidence, because I take women seriously, not at the expense of facts or reason.

For all theo care of this Tara woman with no credibility.

They called Ford A disgusting human.