The Biden sexual assault would never be prosecuted because it did or didn’t happen 27 years ago. That’s not the question. The question is whether women have a right to be believed? I thought coming out of Kavanaugh that was the Democrats mantra.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Google News directed me to a thoughtful piece: The Man Who Thought Too Fast
"'The world will never know what has happened—what a light has gone out,' the belletrist Lytton Strachey, a member of London’s Bloomsbury literary set, wrote to a friend on January 19, 1930. Frank Ramsey, a lecturer in mathematics at Cambridge University, had died that day at the age of twenty-six.... 'There was something of Newton about him,' Strachey continued. 'The ease and majesty of the thought—the gentleness of the temperament.'”
We often flatter ourselves at TMC and periodically ponder the disconnect between reality and others' thoughts about it. Less seldom we acknowledge the same discontinuity in ourselves but as I learned from my oldest son when he was six when I asked him did he believe in Baptism he said, "Hell dad, I've seen it done." Ramsey, too, ended with a pitch for pragmatism as a solution to the dilemma, without credit, at least in this piece, for what Einstein called "operational definitions." (Cf the radio announcer in Alaska who once said "I'll take a leak outside to see if it's freezing.") This solves at least for a simple mind like mine the conundrums of market behavior, politics, economics and even the key paradox of stability in our world compared to that of the quantum. The "real world" is our opinion at once of the quantum. (Credit the many world's hypothesis of Wheeler.)
The New Yorker ends comparing Ramsey to Hume:
"...[T]here were philosophical parallels with Hume, too. The Scotsman wrote that the human mind 'has a great propensity to spread itself on external objects'—that is, to mistake its own activities for features of reality. This was a theme of Ramsey’s work. Hume’s idea is what Ramsey was getting at when he wrote, in his last year, that there are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes.
Nobody will know how far Ramsey might have taken this idea, or any other, if he had survived. Statements about what would have happened if things had been different are what Ramsey called 'unfulfilled' conditionals. They express an attitude, he said, but do not correspond to any reality."
Again a tortured navigation to "Don't be fooled by appearances," and Socrates again.
"'The world will never know what has happened—what a light has gone out,' the belletrist Lytton Strachey, a member of London’s Bloomsbury literary set, wrote to a friend on January 19, 1930. Frank Ramsey, a lecturer in mathematics at Cambridge University, had died that day at the age of twenty-six.... 'There was something of Newton about him,' Strachey continued. 'The ease and majesty of the thought—the gentleness of the temperament.'”
We often flatter ourselves at TMC and periodically ponder the disconnect between reality and others' thoughts about it. Less seldom we acknowledge the same discontinuity in ourselves but as I learned from my oldest son when he was six when I asked him did he believe in Baptism he said, "Hell dad, I've seen it done." Ramsey, too, ended with a pitch for pragmatism as a solution to the dilemma, without credit, at least in this piece, for what Einstein called "operational definitions." (Cf the radio announcer in Alaska who once said "I'll take a leak outside to see if it's freezing.") This solves at least for a simple mind like mine the conundrums of market behavior, politics, economics and even the key paradox of stability in our world compared to that of the quantum. The "real world" is our opinion at once of the quantum. (Credit the many world's hypothesis of Wheeler.)
The New Yorker ends comparing Ramsey to Hume:
"...[T]here were philosophical parallels with Hume, too. The Scotsman wrote that the human mind 'has a great propensity to spread itself on external objects'—that is, to mistake its own activities for features of reality. This was a theme of Ramsey’s work. Hume’s idea is what Ramsey was getting at when he wrote, in his last year, that there are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes.
Nobody will know how far Ramsey might have taken this idea, or any other, if he had survived. Statements about what would have happened if things had been different are what Ramsey called 'unfulfilled' conditionals. They express an attitude, he said, but do not correspond to any reality."
Again a tortured navigation to "Don't be fooled by appearances," and Socrates again.
Cultures around the world have dismissed women's claims of sexual assault for centuries. It's a flaw that we're trying to rectify in many countries. But just because we didn't believe many women's stories doesn't mean every story is true. 180 degrees of wrong is a different type of wrong.
My SO was reading the opinions of experts on sexual assault to me last night. Many are survivors themselves. They all found serious problems with Tara Reade's story. Many pointed out that no victim of sexual assault would praise their assaulter unless forced to and Reade had many good things to say about Biden until a month ago. Up until a month ago the most she said about it was he made her feel uncomfortable but it wasn't sexual, which many women have said about his tendency to touch people too much.
She also quotes Biden with saying some things that were not in the common vocabulary like "C'mon man!" in 1993. Especially not something a white guy in his late 40s would have said then. Her description of what she was wearing during the encounter would have violated the dress code for the Senate office building of the day.
In April 2019 she wrote an article on medium.com about her experience with Biden that was much tamer than what is there now. Someone went and compared what was there from April 2019 to March 2020 to what is there now
Tara Reade’s Updated Medium Post: All Material Edits
In the primaries Tara Reade was an outspoken proponent of Bernie and in recent years she has posted praise for Vladamir Putin many times. How someone can be a fan of both people doesn't make much sense to me, but apparently she is.
The victims/experts also pointed out that when a man in his 40s does the sort of thing Reade alleges, he's done it many, many times before and there are almost always rumors floating around. When someone comes forward with a story like this that is credible, especially now, other women who were victims of the same guy come forward. This story has been out there for over a month and nobody else has come forward.
Most of my friends are women and the number of them who have told me stories of sexual assault is scary. It's a serious problem. I strongly believe that any story of sexual assault allegations should be taken seriously and heard. But don't shut off critical thinking because of the subject matter. No story is automatically true because of the subject matter. People can make things up, or get material facts wrong.
Sometimes they are not aware they are doing it. I have a friend with severe PTSD over a horrific experience he went through that lasted years. When he's triggered, he starts making up things that didn't happen. In some cases things that couldn't happen. He's not aware of it and the next day he'll deny he ever said it even though everyone else who heard will agree he did.
It's quite possible Tara Reade was assaulted by a US Senator the way she described, just not Joe Biden. In 1993 Bob Packwood was still in the Senate and there are stories of his assaults that sound much like Reade's story. I recall he is alleged to have assaulted a number of interns over the years, some of them interns to other Senators.
It's also possible that Reade was assaulted by someone else at some other time. The more I look at this case, the less I believe the story that Joe Biden is guilty of anything more than all the other instances of him being too touchy feely, but not sexual with other people.
This stinks of a political hit and not a real sexual assault. Just because more sexual assault stories are true than the world believed 40 years ago doesn't mean all sexual assault stories are true.
This is sadly entertaining but mind blowing visual of disparity of wealth between millionaires, billionaires, and how much a trillion actually is.
Wealth, shown to scale
Wealth, shown to scale
It's mildly amusing, but the producer is misguided. "No single human needs or deserves this much wealth." is absolutely true, but Bezos earned it. He didn't inherit it. The problem isn't with Bezos, or the hundreds of Americans who make up the richest 0.00015% of the population, but with the government policies that enable it. Putting the onus on these "rich americans" to solve the shortage in tests and vaccines is completely mis-directed effort and vilifies people who are NOT responsible for the problems that we're having. Especially since most of their wealth is tied to the value of the companies they run.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
He didn't work proportionally harder than anyone else to "earn" it. At a certain level wealth simply becomes a magnet for more wealth. He had a good idea at the right time in history, which is as much luck as anything else.
Yes, but luck isn't a taxable event. You can try Warren's annual estate tax to redistribute the wealth, but this forces company founders to eventually have to sell away their controlling stake to pay the taxes. The actual method doesn't matter, as long as it's recognized that it's the government that's responsible for that task, not the individuals - since some people just don't have any moral fiber in their body to do the right thing (Bezos and Zuckerberg being prime candidates).
My issue was with the producer of the website, since it was sending the message that the rich were the cause of our current problems (e.g. if only they would spend 3% of their wealth to buy enough covid-19 tests for everyone).
No way anyone else would have to guessed to make a marketplace on the internet.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It is when you win the lottery, so...
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
A friend heard a theory which I'm trying to verify. If vote by mail happens in November, and if all the red states decide they "can't" certify the results, then the election goes to the House of Reps, but they can only cast one vote per state. Thus the red states could call the election for Trump.
Related but not that exact scenario:
How Donald Trump Could Steal the Election
Trump can't cancel the 2020 election, even in a coronavirus pandemic
Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Related but not that exact scenario:
How Donald Trump Could Steal the Election
Trump can't cancel the 2020 election, even in a coronavirus pandemic
Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Which of the following statements do you think are true?
1) Republicans used the massive coronavirus relief package passed in late March (the CARES Act) to slip, at the last minute, more than $100 billion over a decade to households earning more than $1 million per year.
2) Republicans used the CARES Act to attack the few measures from the 2017 Trump Rich Man’s Tax Cut that were designed to bring in at least some revenue from multimillionaires.
3) Senate Republicans would have needed 60 votes to pass Trump’s Rich Man’s Tax Cut—which they didn’t have—unless they inserted revenue-raising provisions that they knew they’d later find a way to repeal. They then took advantage of the pandemic to do so.
The answer, as you’ve probably guessed, is “all of the above.”
<snip>
A stunning 80% of the tax breaks resulting from these various measures goes to a tiny number of multimillionaires; 43,000 to be exact. They will each receive an average of $1.6 million this year. But hey, those people earning less than $75,000 this year are getting a $1,200 stimulus check, and that’s a number too, so it’s all good, right? These provisions will ultimately cost our government $195 billion, yet we’ve only sent $100 billion to hospitals since the pandemic began. Does that make any sense to you?
How did this huge bonanza for the top 1% make it into the CARES Act in the first place? And what about Democrats—don’t they run the House of Representatives? These are important questions. Akela Lacy is a reporter at The Intercept, a media outfit not exactly known as being a partisan cheerleader for elected Democrats.
Lacy wrote that the “massive millionaire tax break was tucked into the final version of the coronavirus stimulus package without the knowledge of a number of Democrats, even though their party colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee had fought to block it during earlier negotiations—highlighting, at best, a breakdown in communication within the party and among the two chambers.”
As for the House, she added that the bill passed that chamber even though “many members—including some in leadership—[were] either unaware that the tax break provision even existed, or unwilling to raise it publicly.” I wouldn’t say Democrats in Congress come out smelling like a rose here, but this was clearly not something they supported or, for the most part, even knew about, according to what at least five of them told Lacy.
<snip>
Democrats have also taken action. Sen. Whitehouse and Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett have been at the forefront. They asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to examine the CARES Act tax breaks for the top 1%, and they’ve been out there screaming bloody murder about the results of this “reverse-Robin Hood” insanity.
Here is another way to think of this massive giveaway: The money spent on these tax breaks would pay for hundreds of N95 masks for every person in America plus 1 million hospital-grade ventilators, eliminating the national shortage. Front-line responders across the country struggle desperately for personal protective equipment (PPE). This money could have surged PPE to the front lines, instead of sending millions to the highest income folks, quarantined in their country estates.
Making matters worse, unlike the small business relief in the CARES Act, these tax breaks came with no strings attached. Companies have no requirement to continue paying employees or to provide sick leave. Even some passive investors—with no employees—could get the benefit.
<snip>
Full article at:
Republicans prove they’ll never miss an opportunity to help the top 1% — not even during a pandemic – Alternet.org
1) Republicans used the massive coronavirus relief package passed in late March (the CARES Act) to slip, at the last minute, more than $100 billion over a decade to households earning more than $1 million per year.
2) Republicans used the CARES Act to attack the few measures from the 2017 Trump Rich Man’s Tax Cut that were designed to bring in at least some revenue from multimillionaires.
3) Senate Republicans would have needed 60 votes to pass Trump’s Rich Man’s Tax Cut—which they didn’t have—unless they inserted revenue-raising provisions that they knew they’d later find a way to repeal. They then took advantage of the pandemic to do so.
The answer, as you’ve probably guessed, is “all of the above.”
<snip>
A stunning 80% of the tax breaks resulting from these various measures goes to a tiny number of multimillionaires; 43,000 to be exact. They will each receive an average of $1.6 million this year. But hey, those people earning less than $75,000 this year are getting a $1,200 stimulus check, and that’s a number too, so it’s all good, right? These provisions will ultimately cost our government $195 billion, yet we’ve only sent $100 billion to hospitals since the pandemic began. Does that make any sense to you?
How did this huge bonanza for the top 1% make it into the CARES Act in the first place? And what about Democrats—don’t they run the House of Representatives? These are important questions. Akela Lacy is a reporter at The Intercept, a media outfit not exactly known as being a partisan cheerleader for elected Democrats.
Lacy wrote that the “massive millionaire tax break was tucked into the final version of the coronavirus stimulus package without the knowledge of a number of Democrats, even though their party colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee had fought to block it during earlier negotiations—highlighting, at best, a breakdown in communication within the party and among the two chambers.”
As for the House, she added that the bill passed that chamber even though “many members—including some in leadership—[were] either unaware that the tax break provision even existed, or unwilling to raise it publicly.” I wouldn’t say Democrats in Congress come out smelling like a rose here, but this was clearly not something they supported or, for the most part, even knew about, according to what at least five of them told Lacy.
<snip>
Democrats have also taken action. Sen. Whitehouse and Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett have been at the forefront. They asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to examine the CARES Act tax breaks for the top 1%, and they’ve been out there screaming bloody murder about the results of this “reverse-Robin Hood” insanity.
Here is another way to think of this massive giveaway: The money spent on these tax breaks would pay for hundreds of N95 masks for every person in America plus 1 million hospital-grade ventilators, eliminating the national shortage. Front-line responders across the country struggle desperately for personal protective equipment (PPE). This money could have surged PPE to the front lines, instead of sending millions to the highest income folks, quarantined in their country estates.
Making matters worse, unlike the small business relief in the CARES Act, these tax breaks came with no strings attached. Companies have no requirement to continue paying employees or to provide sick leave. Even some passive investors—with no employees—could get the benefit.
<snip>
Full article at:
Republicans prove they’ll never miss an opportunity to help the top 1% — not even during a pandemic – Alternet.org
Sounds like Trump then add insult to injury by personally adding more delays despite advice from Pentagon, NIH, and pretty much everyone else...
The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia
This is a very unlikely scenario. Each state holds its own elections and the electoral college is supposed to meet and vote for president. If a state does not certify the election, there really is no clear cut mechanism to deal with that (a flaw IMO) and it would almost certainly end up in court and if the results were pretty clear one way or the other the judge would be asking the state why this ended up in court.
Some states are redder than others and there are some states with some nutty Republican governors who could pull games if Biden wins, like Texas or Florida, but there are also some reasonable Republican governors like Ohio, Maryland, and Massachusetts who aren't going to go along with weird games. It would almost certainly take collusion between the governor and secretary of state to pull a stunt like this unless there was some kind of funny business that was provable in court.
Right now the states where Biden has a clear lead and at least 270 electoral votes have either a Democratic governor, a Democratic Secretary of State, or both. And there are some states in Republican control where at least one of those officials won't go along with such a scheme, even if Biden wins that state. So all those states with at least partial Democratic control or reasonable Republicans certify their elections, the electoral college meets and has at least 270 electoral votes. The other states refuse to allow the EC to meet in that state, so they record 0 EV. Result Biden 270 EV, Trump 0, election is messy, but resolved.
For this trick to work, they would have to get states with at least 270 EV to refuse to certify and that would be just about impossible. Thanks to the 2018 election, Democrats have too much control in too many states to pull this off. A significant factor is Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania flipped both the governor and the SOS. The election in those states is being run by Democratic secretary of states with flank support from Democratic governors. The complete opposite of 2016. All Biden needs is what Hillary won in 2016 with those three states added on.
Wisconsin still has legislature control by the GOP plus some very conservative judges in some key seats, but while they can do things like force in person voting, they have no power in certifying the election.
DragonWatch
Small FootPrint
Life is an interpretation with no model of success.
And, humans can justify anything ~ period/amen.
And, humans can justify anything ~ period/amen.
You are raising some valid points and I greatly appreciate the detailed argument but the comment only includes argument from one particular side, hence this reply.
A similar argument was used in the Harvey Weinstein case. Of course, this doesn't mean that this behavior should be completely dismissed when evaluating this case.
Not sure about the 'up until a month ago'. Several months ago she alluded on Twitter that when she first came out she did not tell her whole story (I cannot find the tweet currently, unfortunately). Also she tried to get help from Time's Up, as well as the Warren and Harris campaign (I'm not finding the timestamp, unfortunately, but it's confirmed here). All three of those did not support her request for help.
Indeed, the timing is weird and it should definitely be further examined! However, the blog post before the edits does not diminish her assault allegations.
That's not exactly true, she was an Elizabeth Warren supporter (13:30 in the video). Only once the options were Bernie vs. Biden was when she supported Bernie.
She said that she got into the Russian history and culture of the 70's and 80's (18:10 in the video) and now calls her blog post miss-informed (18:50 in the video).
Again, I'm not saying that this part of her history carries no weight but what I'm advocating for is that both person's histories should be examined! If a weird blog post about Putin is somehow relevant to the argument, then I think Biden's history should also be considered.
In particular, Biden's absurd history of outrageous lies. He lied about his academic record and plagiarized speeches which was literally the reason he dropped out of his first presidential campaign. He lied about the death of his wife and daughter saying that the truck driver was driving under the influence. So not only did the driver have to deal with the traumatic experience of the accident, he also had to experience Biden publicly telling lies about him. In the current campaign, he lied about being arrested while seeing Nelson Mandela and that Mandela personally thanked him. This is particularly concerning because Biden played the exact opposite role during the Civil Rights era. There are many other lies that I did not mention here.
Also, the comment did not include mentions about any corroborating evidence such as Reade's mother calling Larry King to talk about Tara having a problem with the senator; friends, her brother, and her former neighbor saying that she told them about the incident. And former interns confirming her story that she suddenly was removed from her position as managing the interns.
No one of us would enjoy being in the position of Tara Reade or Christine Blasey Ford. For instance, Tara Reade's social security number got leaked and she is receiving death threats.
I do not know myself what to believe, yet. I understand the frustration and the arguments on both sides. Of course I have my own political ideology and it is extremely hard to remove this ideology when talking about such sensitive and important topics.
Lastly, I'm not advocating that no one is allowed to vote for Biden because of this. If someone says that they believe Reade and will still support Biden to note enable Trump, this is a perfectly logical position. So is the position, after applying the same standards as with Kavanaugh, to say that the current data is not sufficient to not believe Biden.
A similar argument was used in the Harvey Weinstein case. Of course, this doesn't mean that this behavior should be completely dismissed when evaluating this case.
Not sure about the 'up until a month ago'. Several months ago she alluded on Twitter that when she first came out she did not tell her whole story (I cannot find the tweet currently, unfortunately). Also she tried to get help from Time's Up, as well as the Warren and Harris campaign (I'm not finding the timestamp, unfortunately, but it's confirmed here). All three of those did not support her request for help.
Indeed, the timing is weird and it should definitely be further examined! However, the blog post before the edits does not diminish her assault allegations.
That's not exactly true, she was an Elizabeth Warren supporter (13:30 in the video). Only once the options were Bernie vs. Biden was when she supported Bernie.
She said that she got into the Russian history and culture of the 70's and 80's (18:10 in the video) and now calls her blog post miss-informed (18:50 in the video).
Again, I'm not saying that this part of her history carries no weight but what I'm advocating for is that both person's histories should be examined! If a weird blog post about Putin is somehow relevant to the argument, then I think Biden's history should also be considered.
In particular, Biden's absurd history of outrageous lies. He lied about his academic record and plagiarized speeches which was literally the reason he dropped out of his first presidential campaign. He lied about the death of his wife and daughter saying that the truck driver was driving under the influence. So not only did the driver have to deal with the traumatic experience of the accident, he also had to experience Biden publicly telling lies about him. In the current campaign, he lied about being arrested while seeing Nelson Mandela and that Mandela personally thanked him. This is particularly concerning because Biden played the exact opposite role during the Civil Rights era. There are many other lies that I did not mention here.
Also, the comment did not include mentions about any corroborating evidence such as Reade's mother calling Larry King to talk about Tara having a problem with the senator; friends, her brother, and her former neighbor saying that she told them about the incident. And former interns confirming her story that she suddenly was removed from her position as managing the interns.
No one of us would enjoy being in the position of Tara Reade or Christine Blasey Ford. For instance, Tara Reade's social security number got leaked and she is receiving death threats.
I do not know myself what to believe, yet. I understand the frustration and the arguments on both sides. Of course I have my own political ideology and it is extremely hard to remove this ideology when talking about such sensitive and important topics.
Lastly, I'm not advocating that no one is allowed to vote for Biden because of this. If someone says that they believe Reade and will still support Biden to note enable Trump, this is a perfectly logical position. So is the position, after applying the same standards as with Kavanaugh, to say that the current data is not sufficient to not believe Biden.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Poll suggests majority of Sanders supporters would vote third party.
April National Poll: Trump Down But Not Out, as Enthusiasm and Expectation Favor the President
April National Poll: Trump Down But Not Out, as Enthusiasm and Expectation Favor the President
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It seems in this case there won't be enough supporting evidence to draw a strong conclusion, unless something changes, so for me an accusation alone would not be enough to "convict".
This sounds like a logical approach for Trump.
Why shut down his coronavirus task force? Trump wants someone to blame if things get worse
Why shut down his coronavirus task force? Trump wants someone to blame if things get worse
You are raising some valid points and I greatly appreciate the detailed argument but the comment only includes argument from one particular side, hence this reply.
A similar argument was used in the Harvey Weinstein case. Of course, this doesn't mean that this behavior should be completely dismissed when evaluating this case.
Not sure about the 'up until a month ago'. Several months ago she alluded on Twitter that when she first came out she did not tell her whole story (I cannot find the tweet currently, unfortunately). Also she tried to get help from Time's Up, as well as the Warren and Harris campaign (I'm not finding the timestamp, unfortunately, but it's confirmed here). All three of those did not support her request for help.
Indeed, the timing is weird and it should definitely be further examined! However, the blog post before the edits does not diminish her assault allegations.
That's not exactly true, she was an Elizabeth Warren supporter (13:30 in the video). Only once the options were Bernie vs. Biden was when she supported Bernie.
She said that she got into the Russian history and culture of the 70's and 80's (18:10 in the video) and now calls her blog post miss-informed (18:50 in the video).
Again, I'm not saying that this part of her history carries no weight but what I'm advocating for is that both person's histories should be examined! If a weird blog post about Putin is somehow relevant to the argument, then I think Biden's history should also be considered.
In particular, Biden's absurd history of outrageous lies. He lied about his academic record and plagiarized speeches which was literally the reason he dropped out of his first presidential campaign. He lied about the death of his wife and daughter saying that the truck driver was driving under the influence. So not only did the driver have to deal with the traumatic experience of the accident, he also had to experience Biden publicly telling lies about him. In the current campaign, he lied about being arrested while seeing Nelson Mandela and that Mandela personally thanked him. This is particularly concerning because Biden played the exact opposite role during the Civil Rights era. There are many other lies that I did not mention here.
Also, the comment did not include mentions about any corroborating evidence such as Reade's mother calling Larry King to talk about Tara having a problem with the senator; friends, her brother, and her former neighbor saying that she told them about the incident. And former interns confirming her story that she suddenly was removed from her position as managing the interns.
No one of us would enjoy being in the position of Tara Reade or Christine Blasey Ford. For instance, Tara Reade's social security number got leaked and she is receiving death threats.
I do not know myself what to believe, yet. I understand the frustration and the arguments on both sides. Of course I have my own political ideology and it is extremely hard to remove this ideology when talking about such sensitive and important topics.
Lastly, I'm not advocating that no one is allowed to vote for Biden because of this. If someone says that they believe Reade and will still support Biden to note enable Trump, this is a perfectly logical position. So is the position, after applying the same standards as with Kavanaugh, to say that the current data is not sufficient to not believe Biden.
C'mon man, you are making too much sense here.
- Status
Similar threads
