Joe Biden, Senator from Citibank (oops, DELAWARE), to Run for President

Frederik B at 12:44 28 Mar 20

She said at first that she told the story that matched what Lucy Flores said, because that was what was most believable. That's not what she says anymore

Yes, I know that very basic thing. i don't for a second believe that is what happened in this case.

Is there any possible way a story could be discredited for you if that story happened to hurt Joe Biden? Serious question. What would give you pause for concern?

Fred sometimes I feel bad when people kneejerk pile on you but ffs flip the logic of that post

Like this feeble, gropey misogynist right wing cunt is the ILX hill you want to die on?

Ffs that does not work at all! Because this specific story has red flags all over. About everything! Which has nothing to do with Biden, and also I'm not a Biden supporter.

The hill here is not Biden, it's that this story isn't true!!!

How the fuck can that be so hard to comprehend? There could be a story about Trump that didn't add up, and I would say so, and if people here began claiming that no, the story just had to make sense, then we would have a clusterfuck as well, and that would not make me a Trump supporter.

"isn't true" has a level of certitude that feels misplaced

Apart from when Jacob Wohl has been involved, it has never been less misplaced than here.

On these kinds of accusations, that is.

It's easy to write in haste when you're being piled on from all sides, so picking out one phrase as insufficiently qualified seems like a bad read. His last ten posts do not reflect such certitude and should be taken as modifying the "isn't true" to "has red flags".

https://technospiritualist.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/energizer-bunny.jpg

I've made it halfway through the Biden CNN town hall--need to get out for a walk. Generally, he's been pretty good, by which I mean pretty lucid. At one point he did that thing where he stops himself mid-sentence if he thinks he's gone on too long; sort of makes sense in a debate, tonight he's not being timed, so that was weird. I honestly don't know what to think. You see those clips where he seems lost, tonight he seems better.

I take it that Fred fears that this story contains poisoned bait and if it is widely circulated as true and enthusiastically swallowed by those it was designed to attract, the credibility and success of #MeToo movement will be harmed by association. I haven't evaluated it, yet, so I have no idea whether I'd see the same red flags or not, but by Fred's own testimony for him this isn't about whether it harms Biden, but whether it harms #MeToo. The fact that no one is noticing this is driving him up a wall.

This specific story that Tara Reade told to The Hill? That story isn't true. I'm 100% certain of that. Because it's changed - yet again - from the story she told Katie Halper, and you could clearly see her in the interview realize she made a mistake, look down at her notes, then carry on. There's just no reason to believe this version is the truth.

Hypothetically, there could be a core of truth and she and Halper and the Hill are messing this up massively. But there's honestly no reason to believe that either.

I'm not sure it will harm MeToo. It should not have any impact what so ever on whether or not we believe the next story. That one will be a fight no matter what, unfortunately. But the journalistic work here has been a fucking disgrace, and seeing people go 'we can never know' is a slap in the face of every journalist out there working there ass off to corroborate a story.

there are multiple forms of bad posting itt

― brimstead, Friday, March 27, 2020 7:23 PM bookmarkflaglink

there are multiple forms of bad posting itt

― brimstead, Friday, March 27, 2020 7:23 PM bookmarkflaglink

― Doctor Casino, Friday, March 27, 2020 9:11 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

ok I'm all caught up, you can continue

ok ilx liberals you have successfully defended Joe Biden's honour for the day. give yourself a pat on the back

― COVID and the Gang (jim in vancouver), Friday, March 27, 2020 10:59 PM (sixteen minutes ago)

sure beats bragging about how you haven't bothered to look into this story but still jumping in to make a couple of worthless comments about it

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, March 27, 2020 4:16 PM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I stand by my point and your post was still gross

You posted "this alleged victim of sexual assault is lying because her story was inconsistent" which is, no matter what the context, a harmful thing to post

It's not necessary to have an opinion on Reade or her allegation to find the fervor and eagerness some posters are dismissing her and the allegation with to be fucking gross and pathetic and obvious that if it wasn't aimed at the presumptive Democratic nominee it would be taken more seriously by those posters.

That's an incredibly vile personal attack, and how the fuck to defend against it if you aren't willing to look at the case? Seriously, that's 99% of the 'fervor and eagerness', it's because I try to defend myself from incredibly serious allegations against me, that people just fling around without in anyway checking if it's deserved.

Fucking catch-22

It can certainly be irksome when what you say is misrepresented

i first saw the assault allegation on yahoo news and they've since removed the story.

my impression is that fred b is the real victim here

i first saw the assault allegation on yahoo news and they've since removed the story.

― akm, Saturday, 28 March 2020 bookmarkflaglink

Yahoo.com are trying to uphold the highest level of journalistic standards let's be cool and sweep this under the carpet so that Fred B is happy.

In 1982, when Reagan’s press secretary was asked if the president was tracking the spread of “the gay plague”, the room erupted in laughter as he replied: “I don’t have it, do you?”

The journalist pressed on: “Does the president – in other words, the White House – look on this as a great joke?”

The press secretary repeatedly shrugged him off, saying: ” No, I don’t know anything about it, Lester.”

Even though AIDS was first identified in 1981, Reagan remained deadly silent on the issue for years, and didn’t even say the word until a 1985, the year of the first high-profile death from the disease.

Many believe his apathy caused thousands to get infected and die, in part because it delayed research critical to understanding and treating the virus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2W82HE99Q

Reagan's AIDs response and Trump's coronavirus response (meant for another thread?) are--with the obvious difference that Trump can't completely ignore coronavirus (I'm sure he wishes he could)--extremely comparable.

(For those not clicking or on Zing, this Biden TV ad praises Reagan's response to AIDS, with the implication that Biden would do as well on coronovirus)

isn't that a shot from the "tear down this wall" speech?

yes. that ad is not drawing a comparison to his response to the AIDS crisis.

(I believe it's drawing a comparison to his 'resolve' with the nuclear crises of the 80's, or some shit. I don't know what crises Bush I faced that he was so great with)

I mean the entire "if only he was a great president guy like Reagan and the Bushes" line of argument is pretty fucking infuriating

gotta win over all those swing "centrist" voters who definitely exist in massive quantities

all 30 nevertrumpers are voting biden!

"i was going to just sit out this election - but then i realized that joe biden will bring us back to the glory days of reagan"

I am patiently waiting for my first sighting in the wild of an "old people are shoving Joe Biden down our throats" complaint.

I'm sure Biden can do that himself

For those not clicking or on Zing, this Biden TV ad praises Reagan's response to AIDS

I just watched it twice, and I don't think that's true at all...There's a shot of Reagan, with no context given whatsoever. Maybe AIDS is a reasonable interpretation, but I'd be more inclined to think--even though the comparison is far-fetched--the reference is to the Challenger. Reagan's response to that routinely is praised and quoted. I can't see any Democratic politician praising his response to AIDS--which simply didn't exist until Rock Hudson.

Or the Berlin Wall, yes--missed that.

Cool, now do insulin https://t.co/AubIdxkB1R

— Derek Davison (@dwdavison) March 28, 2020

Yeah, sorry, I phrased that badly in haste & anger - meant that praising Reagan’s calm-headed crisis response in the context of a pandemic should immediately draw parallels in the mind of anyone sane to his treatment of AIDS.

It ought to be ludicrous enough that the Dems are shooting their shot on "but then i realized that joe biden will bring us back to the glory days of reagan,” or Bush, but specifically invoking Reagan during both a financial collapse and a deadly virus outbreak is fucking mindblowing.

Joe Biden sux

Symone Sanders deleted her tweets supporting Christine Ford? Come the fuck on...

it's fine to delete tweets for any reason whatsoever

here's one though

First off, this is obviously a lie. But even if it wasn't a lie, it means Biden heard this story, kept it in his heart, and then voted for the Defense of Marriage Act anyway. https://t.co/iSJgn1QDlz

— John-Michael Bond (@BondJohnBond) March 28, 2020

how could anyone be this stu--oh pic.twitter.com/MrsNotaeqC

— Cari Hernandez (@eatinginmycar) March 29, 2020