US Politics: The Killing Hoax

[Fury Resurrected]

5 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

You're responding to her post about her feelings that the establishment not listening to women by not just dismissing her position- literally reframing it to what you wanted it to be so you could better do that- but doing so in the most stereotypically old-school sexist 'there there dear I don't understand why you're so emotional about this we'll talk when you're not mad' manner and you're wondering why she's upset with you? Are you doing a bit here?

Even if, like Ants and Bael's Bastard, you don't think there's any more the DNC could be doing right now until and if more comes to light, there was absolutely no reason to come at it so sneeringly, as if you think the problem isn't whether it's true or not but that it's contempible even to think about questioning those of you happy with Biden as the democratic nominee.


 

I think he’s taken his ball and gone home, he’s tired of womenfolk being so rude as to point out to him that he’s being rude while he is demanding they cast their ballot to his liking.

[ants]

20 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

How about reaching out to victims of similar crimes? How about some policies that would protect those people? How about a private, professionally led, restorative justice session between Biden and Reade (if she would be willing)? There’s a lot they could be doing, but as I said, that would require acknowledging and listening to survivors, and that’s something this society only grants lip service to.

Thank you for the suggestions, I think they're the first ones where someone has concretely put the next steps they think the DNC should actually do.

That said, on the first I'd bloody well hope policies such as that are part of the DNC policy system already, and would (will?) be disappointed if they're not.  Protections for people who speak out about many things should be protected, and I would have thought the party who represents themselves as both progressive and for labour would put in such protections.  Of course, some of them will be tricky because of the whole USA freedom of speech thing.

I'm generally against the accused changing their stance due to being accused (where there is no corroborating evidence), but if these aren't part of Biden and the DNC's policies, they should be.  

On the second, I will freely admit to not knowing much about such sessions.  Do they work well where one party is claiming it didn't happen?  Also, would it work at all in the current environment where it would probably have to be done via video link due to COVID19?  

Based on what you're saying, it does sound like the DNC should reach out to Reade even if its not a formal investigation, to record her allegations and give acknowledgement that she has made heard and they're listening.  That said, such a move could easily be painted as lip service if nothing else is expected to come of it without further victims or evidence.

I am a little surprised that after Al Franken, and with a clear amount of evidence that people (mostly men) have been behaving like this for decades, that the DNC doesn't have a clear process and rules to treat these types of allegations.  And I would hope survivors were/would be involved in building those rules and procedures.  They shouldn't be designed to necessarily find an answer (as too often things will be one said, they said), but at least go through the process of listening and finding out if a more formal inquiry into whether there is an answer is required.  

[karaddin]

@ants I'm not at all surprised that they wouldn't have this unfortunately, even a more left wing party in a nation with less all encompassing free speech laws such as the NSW Greens have been shown to be woefully unprepared for handling these sorts of allegations in the last few years. Political parties have been built by, and for, the men who wield power within their circles and they don't squander it. In the NSW Greens case the alleged rapist in question (I knew one of the victims online and there is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that it true, I saw the bruises, I saw what happened to her mental health afterwards and I saw how he reacted towards her both in public and in private and it was the reactions of a gaslighting piece of shit that had wronged someone) was a member of the NSW upper house while women that were Greens members of the lower house faced a metric ton of blowback for attempting to hold him to account.

That middle aged guy from the NSW Greens has many orders of magnitude less power than someone like Joe Biden, but they still have enough to protect themselves for years.

[Fury Resurrected]

2 minutes ago, ants said:

Thank you for the suggestions, I think they're the first ones where someone has concretely put the next steps they think the DNC should actually do.

That said, on the first I'd bloody well hope policies such as that are part of the DNC policy system already, and would (will?) be disappointed if they're not.  Protections for people who speak out about many things should be protected, and I would have thought the party who represents themselves as both progressive and for labour would put in such protections.  Of course, some of them will be tricky because of the whole USA freedom of speech thing.

I'm generally against the accused changing their stance due to being accused (where there is no corroborating evidence), but if these aren't part of Biden and the DNC's policies, they should be.  

On the second, I will freely admit to not knowing much about such sessions.  Do they work well where one party is claiming it didn't happen?  Also, would it work at all in the current environment where it would probably have to be done via video link due to COVID19?  

Based on what you're saying, it does sound like the DNC should reach out to Reade even if its not a formal investigation, to record her allegations and give acknowledgement that she has made heard and they're listening.  That said, such a move could easily be painted as lip service if nothing else is expected to come of it without further victims or evidence.

I am a little surprised that after Al Franken, and with a clear amount of evidence that people (mostly men) have been behaving like this for decades, that the DNC doesn't have a clear process and rules to treat these types of allegations.  And I would hope survivors were/would be involved in building those rules and procedures.  They shouldn't be designed to necessarily find an answer (as too often things will be one said, they said), but at least go through the process of listening and finding out if a more formal inquiry into whether there is an answer is required.  

I am not an expert in restorative justice. I have read a lot of really really promising things about it from therapists and people who are trying to reform the criminal justice system as a really wonderful thing for a lot of people. As for the Biden situation, he’d probably have to at least admit that he did something that she felt was inappropriate and that he wants to do this to try and understand her perspective and make it right. That would mean a lot to me and show a lot of character. It would give Tara Reade an opportunity to face him on a more level playing field in a safer environment, and allow her to tell him what she needs in this situation, and how she has been impacted. 
 

I also think making a big push for comprehensive sex education with a huge emphasis on consent is a great policy I haven’t yet seen made enough of that would be excellent. I think a huge number of people don’t understand consent and that leads to a lot of situations like this where one party truly thinks they did nothing wrong when they did not get consent, or did not get meaningful consent. 

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I also think making a big push for comprehensive sex education with a huge emphasis on consent is a great policy I haven’t yet seen made enough of that would be excellent. I think a huge number of people don’t understand consent and that leads to a lot of situations like this where one party truly thinks they did nothing wrong when they did not get consent, or did not get meaningful consent. 

This x1000. I know that pushing genuine sex ed is probably as contentious as abortion with the batshit views of a large number of people, but kids - boys, girls and neither - all have a right to an education on the skills that are critical for life, and proper sex ed is the only thing that will drastically reduce the number of sexual assaults committed by boys and men that don't actually intend to do it, and don't even realise they have. It won't fix the malicious rapists, but it doesn't need to in order to have a huge impact.

[Fury Resurrected]

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

This x1000. I know that pushing genuine sex ed is probably as contentious as abortion with the batshit views of a large number of people, but kids - boys, girls and neither - all have a right to an education on the skills that are critical for life, and proper sex ed is the only thing that will drastically reduce the number of sexual assaults committed by boys and men that don't actually intend to do it, and don't even realise they have. It won't fix the malicious rapists, but it doesn't need to in order to have a huge impact.

Absolutely- most rapists do not think what they did was rape, and tons of media shows scenarios of date rape presented as that’s not what it is. That reinforces the confusion about what is and is not consensual 

[Reny of Storms End]

21 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I am not an expert in restorative justice. I have read a lot of really really promising things about it from therapists and people who are trying to reform the criminal justice system as a really wonderful thing for a lot of people. As for the Biden situation, he’d probably have to at least admit that he did something that she felt was inappropriate and that he wants to do this to try and understand her perspective and make it right. That would mean a lot to me and show a lot of character. It would give Tara Reade an opportunity to face him on a more level playing field in a safer environment, and allow her to tell him what she needs in this situation, and how she has been impacted. 
 

I also think making a big push for comprehensive sex education with a huge emphasis on consent is a great policy I haven’t yet seen made enough of that would be excellent. I think a huge number of people don’t understand consent and that leads to a lot of situations like this where one party truly thinks they did nothing wrong when they did not get consent, or did not get meaningful consent. 

Sadly if Biden did do that, my opinion is that Trump would be a shoo-in for reelection. Which really sucks, because I don't want any survivor to feel like their emotions are being dismissed or ignored. It feels so contradictory to then follow that up by saying that for me the biggest single issue with this election is having Trump lose, but that's where I'm at. I wish I had better answers because it feels like shit to tell someone else they need to just suck it up. 

[Kalbear]

20 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Absolutely- most rapists do not think what they did was rape, and tons of media shows scenarios of date rape presented as that’s not what it is. That reinforces the confusion about what is and is not consensual 

Not to get into that bit too much, but as it turns out this isn't particularly accurate. It is apparently a lot more likely that most people who have been assaulted were assaulted by the same group of people, and while 1 in 5 women have been assaulted it does not follow that 1 in 5 men are assaulters. There is a LOT of toxicity in allowing this kind of behavior to continue and more education is better, but for the most part educating the commonplace won't stop these things; what it'll do is stop the casual acceptance among bros. 

[Fury Resurrected]

6 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

Sadly if Biden did do that, my opinion is that Trump would be a shoo-in for reelection. Which really sucks, because I don't want any survivor to feel like their emotions are being dismissed or ignored. It feels so contradictory to then follow that up by saying that for me the biggest single issue with this election is having Trump lose, but that's where I'm at. I wish I had better answers because it feels like shit to tell someone else they need to just suck it up. 

Tbh, I think Trump will win no matter what. I think we picked a very weak candidate that Trump can Benghazi all over again with Ukraine, and the Reade allegations negate the power in calling out the dozens of allegations against Trump. I think choosing a dinosaur behind almost all of the party by a decade in healthcare reform, who doesn’t even in the face of the worst case scenario for employment tied health insurance support a national plan was handing Trump a second term.

[Fury Resurrected]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not to get into that bit too much, but as it turns out this isn't particularly accurate. It is apparently a lot more likely that most people who have been assaulted were assaulted by the same group of people, and while 1 in 5 women have been assaulted it does not follow that 1 in 5 men are assaulters. There is a LOT of toxicity in allowing this kind of behavior to continue and more education is better, but for the most part educating the commonplace won't stop these things; what it'll do is stop the casual acceptance among bros. 

I think that’s a separate statistic entirely. Of course most people who do it once do it again- but I think most people don’t regard what they have done as assault/rape. Those facts aren’t mutually exclusive. I do know in my personal experience that dudes I told about the second time I was raped (the first time I was 13 and it was your guy jumps out of bushes type situations that people picture so I was spared most of the horrible comments) the most common response from men was “how could he rape you if he was your boyfriend?” Very few dudes did not say this, with no malice at all. Many also said “but he was drunk though, right?” Do I think all of these people have raped someone themselves? No. But do they fully understand consent? Clearly not. I have friends with the exact same story and the exact same responses from people.

It is also meaningful that many of the things said about Reade like “why didn’t she say something sooner?” “Why did she downplay it at first?” And “there’s no proof” were also said to and about me at the time. But what proof does anyone have for most incidents when someone touches their genitals? Just their word on it.

[Martell Spy]

14 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Tbh, I think Trump will win no matter what. I think we picked a very weak candidate that Trump can Benghazi all over again with Ukraine, and the Reade allegations negate the power in calling out the dozens of allegations against Trump. I think choosing a dinosaur behind almost all of the party by a decade in healthcare reform, who doesn’t even in the face of the worst case scenario for employment tied health insurance support a national plan was handing Trump a second term.

The rest of us don't know that. Do you have a 100 percent record in predicting elections? I have followed U.S. politics for decades and I'll freely admit I've been wrong many times. I was so certain Kerry would win.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

The rest of us don't know that. Do you have a 100 percent record in predicting elections?

That’s why I put several times in my post that’s what “I think”. Just like Reny was posting an opinion, I am allowed to discuss mine without a perfect track record calling elections. So before you ask I’m also not a professional pollster, a psychic medium, or a time traveler. But if I’ve missed out on some licensing process for expressing opinions enacted while I’ve been gone link me up so I can get that sorted.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I think that’s a separate statistic entirely. Of course most people who do it once do it again- but I think most people don’t regard what they have done as assault/rape. Those facts aren’t mutually exclusive. I do know in my personal experience that dudes I told about the second time I was raped (the first time I was 13 and it was your guy jumps out of bushes type situations that people picture so I was spared most of the horrible comments) the most common response from men was “how could he rape you if he was your boyfriend?” Very few dudes did not say this, with no malice at all. Many also said “but he was drunk though, right?” Do I think all of these people have raped someone themselves? No. But do they fully understand consent? Clearly not. I have friends with the exact same story and the exact same responses from people. 

Right, I'm in agreement. But that education won't stop actual rapes from happening. It'll stop some of the support that these rapists will get, and will stop some of the ugly questioning that victims receive. There had been a big idea that programs indicating what consent was and making sure everyone understood what was actually assault would make people safer, but that hasn't been borne out, largely because it isn't something that a perp just does the once. 

1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said:

It is also meaningful that many of the things said about Reade like “why didn’t she say something sooner?” “Why did she downplay it at first?” And “there’s no proof” were also said to and about me at the time. But what proof does anyone have for most incidents when someone touches their genitals? Just their word on it.

Sure. And that's a major problem, but it is still going to be a major problem no matter what. I am sorry that @ants and @karaddin don't like the idea of her credibility being on the stand but that's the ugly truth one way or another. It (again) doesn't make it less true what she said, nor does it mean that it didn't happen, but her credibility means that any kind of actual justice will not happen, and chances are good it will not get a large amount of press from anyone due to that lack of credibility. Now, things and facts can change that, but unfortunately the more she's investigated the worse her credibility becomes, and the less the mainstream press wants to work on it because there are no major corroborating stories or facts in play. 

And saying those things doesn't mean I'm am armchair detective or reporter; I'm simply reading what news articles are saying, and that's precisely what they're saying too. 

18 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Tbh, I think Trump will win no matter what. I think we picked a very weak candidate that Trump can Benghazi all over again with Ukraine, and the Reade allegations negate the power in calling out the dozens of allegations against Trump. I think choosing a dinosaur behind almost all of the party by a decade in healthcare reform, who doesn’t even in the face of the worst case scenario for employment tied health insurance support a national plan was handing Trump a second term.

I think that Biden's quality really doesn't matter here. The main thing that matters is the economy. The candidate matters some, but realistically it was always going to be a heavy lift for any candidate to win against an incumbent with a 3% unemployment rate, even one as unpopular as Trump. And while Biden might have been a weak candidate, other candidates never took advantage of that weakness in a way that ever took Biden out. The youth did not turn out in droves. The coalition of white working class and progressives did not coalesce around the same candidate. Much of the ways that a more progressive candidate supposedly would win in the general election didn't happen in the primaries as they predicted, making those predictions unlikely to happen as well. Biden may be a very weak candidate - in general, VPs of popular POTUSes are pretty decent one way or another - but he was the strongest candidate in the field in 2020. 

[Fury Resurrected]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Right, I'm in agreement. But that education won't stop actual rapes from happening. It'll stop some of the support that these rapists will get, and will stop some of the ugly questioning that victims receive. There had been a big idea that programs indicating what consent was and making sure everyone understood what was actually assault would make people safer, but that hasn't been borne out, largely because it isn't something that a perp just does the once. 

Sure. And that's a major problem, but it is still going to be a major problem no matter what. I am sorry that @ants and @karaddin don't like the idea of her credibility being on the stand but that's the ugly truth one way or another. It (again) doesn't make it less true what she said, nor does it mean that it didn't happen, but her credibility means that any kind of actual justice will not happen, and chances are good it will not get a large amount of press from anyone due to that lack of credibility. Now, things and facts can change that, but unfortunately the more she's investigated the worse her credibility becomes, and the less the mainstream press wants to work on it because there are no major corroborating stories or facts in play. 

And saying those things doesn't mean I'm am armchair detective or reporter; I'm simply reading what news articles are saying, and that's precisely what they're saying too. 

I think that Biden's quality really doesn't matter here. The main thing that matters is the economy. The candidate matters some, but realistically it was always going to be a heavy lift for any candidate to win against an incumbent with a 3% unemployment rate, even one as unpopular as Trump. And while Biden might have been a weak candidate, other candidates never took advantage of that weakness in a way that ever took Biden out. The youth did not turn out in droves. The coalition of white working class and progressives did not coalesce around the same candidate. Much of the ways that a more progressive candidate supposedly would win in the general election didn't happen in the primaries as they predicted, making those predictions unlikely to happen as well. Biden may be a very weak candidate - in general, VPs of popular POTUSes are pretty decent one way or another - but he was the strongest candidate in the field in 2020. 

The way our primary system is set up it’s hard to tell in a huge field who the strongest candidate is. I think if we held the democratic primary vote in one day (or at least a few randomly selected states on a few different days that don’t prioritize such ridiculous places and basically render late states voteless most of the time) with ranked choice voting by mail- then we’d have much better candidates, save a fuckton of money, and enfranchise a lot more voters which would translate into stronger voting habits for people who aren’t as reliable for turnout. I was surprised how little traction Harris (who I did not want and wouldn’t have given my primary vote but thought would be strongest against Trump in the general) and Castro (who I think is great and sincerely hope is President someday) got. That was the best energy and vitality from each end of the party imo.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The way our primary system is set up it’s hard to tell in a huge field who the strongest candidate is. I think if we held the democratic primary vote in one day (or at least a few randomly selected states on a few different days that don’t prioritize such ridiculous places and basically render late states voteless most of the time) with ranked choice voting by mail- then we’d have much better candidates, save a fuckton of money, and enfranchise a lot more voters which would translate into stronger voting habits for people who aren’t as reliable for turnout. I was surprised how little traction Harris (who I did not want and wouldn’t have given my primary vote but thought would be strongest against Trump in the general) and Castro (who I think is great and sincerely hope is President someday) got. That was the best energy and vitality from each end of the party imo.

Eh. After this election and doing research into it across other places I think the idea of changing voting habits of the young just ain't gonna happen. At least not in this country, at least not for a while. When Washington State - which is progressive and has 100% vote by mail with free fucking postage - has just as shitty turnout of youth as anywhere else, well, it tells me the problem isn't barriers to entry or voters being enfranchised. It's that a whole lot of people just don't give a shit. 

I'm a big proponent of ranked choice and doing runoffs and much shorter voting cycles. I don't see how that would have helped a ton here though. At the end the field winnowed down pretty quickly before any voting was done, and Harris and Castro were simply not great candidates. They weren't able to raise money, they weren't able to raise interest, and aside from Harris going after Biden in one debate they never flashed nationally whatsoever. 

Also, on the policy thing about Biden not going to nationalized healthcare in spite of the pandemic, first off - he's got time (and I swear he changed something of his mind recently on this but couldn't find it), and second, policy doesn't mean fuckall as far as specifics and voting goes. I sincerely and deeply wish it did, but what matters is how popular people are and little else. 

[Martell Spy]

34 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Tbh, I think Trump will win no matter what. I think we picked a very weak candidate that Trump can Benghazi all over again with Ukraine, and the Reade allegations negate the power in calling out the dozens of allegations against Trump. I think choosing a dinosaur behind almost all of the party by a decade in healthcare reform, who doesn’t even in the face of the worst case scenario for employment tied health insurance support a national plan was handing Trump a second term.

OK, thanks for clearing that up. However, you made this prediction in response to a post from @Reny of Storms End. That poster predicted that if Biden took the actions you prescribed he would then lose the election to Trump. Your response was this prediction. It just seems rather unadvisable to tank the election based on the assumption we have already lost. And if we followed that to the logical conclusion, then Democratic party voters should not give donations or volunteer for campaigns. As we have already lost.

[Fury Resurrected]

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

OK, thanks for clearing that up. However, you made this prediction in response to a post from @Reny of Storms End. That poster predicted that if Biden took the actions you prescribed he would then lose the election to Trump. Your response was this prediction. It just seems rather unadvisable to tank the election based on the assumption we have already lost. And if we followed that to the logical conclusion, then Democratic party voters should not give donations or volunteer for campaigns. As we have already lost.

I also do not agree anything I described would rank the election whether Biden has already lost it or not. I think anyone put off by restorative justice and comprehensive sex Ed wasn’t going to be voting for a Democrat no matter who it was or what their track record was.

[ants]

2 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I am not an expert in restorative justice. I have read a lot of really really promising things about it from therapists and people who are trying to reform the criminal justice system as a really wonderful thing for a lot of people. As for the Biden situation, he’d probably have to at least admit that he did something that she felt was inappropriate and that he wants to do this to try and understand her perspective and make it right. That would mean a lot to me and show a lot of character. It would give Tara Reade an opportunity to face him on a more level playing field in a safer environment, and allow her to tell him what she needs in this situation, and how she has been impacted. 

 That might be pretty difficult to get, if he honestly has no memory of the incident and believes (rightly or wrongly) that he wouldn't do something like that.  I also pretty much agree with @Reny of Storms End, that if he did that and it leaked in any way he'd admitted such, his chances of the Presidency would take a major hit.  By which I mean even if he was open to the gesture, he might refuse to do so for political reasons.  

2 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I also think making a big push for comprehensive sex education with a huge emphasis on consent is a great policy I haven’t yet seen made enough of that would be excellent. I think a huge number of people don’t understand consent and that leads to a lot of situations like this where one party truly thinks they did nothing wrong when they did not get consent, or did not get meaningful consent. 

I absolutely agree the US (and Australia) needs more of this.  However, I don't think this is a federal issue/power in the US, so expecting it in a Federal policy document is unlikely to occur.  

[ants]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm comfortable disbelieving Biden, he's repeatedly lied, plagiarized, and shamelessly exaggerated stuff that is easily refuted for his entire career.  He certainly hasn't been honest about his past.

As I said, people are following their own biases.  

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

And that stuff about sticking together because Republicans do is absurd.  It's basically advocating hypocrisy, nihilism, and winning at all costs over having any kind of ethical framework.

If in the future the Dems start doing this more than they already do (it's not like Sanders or Warren have called for any investigation into Reade's claims), and over a long enough period of time, they will become indistinguishable from the GOP.  The differences will be aesthetic only, because there will be no platforms and nothing will mean anything.

Dem president decides to continue endless wars, drone strikes, sanctions, overlooking human rights concerns for economic ones?  Can't criticize them, have to look unified.  Dem president doesn't make a priority of changing the way we are currently handling immigration?  Oh well, maybe next time, can't speak out against Dear Leader.  Dem president caught sexually assaulting someone?  Just toe the line for the good of the country. 

I brought that up because it seems like the same people over and over bringing up these allegations.  We've had these discussions each time, and each time Burnie supporters have pushed for Biden to be stripped of the nomination, or said he should be encouraged to step aside.  This got brought up again because someone found that a single element of Reade's discussions about the past was true, and brought it up like a 'gotcha' moment.  Despite it not really adding anything to the narrative.

I understand people who have serious concerns with Biden on this not voting Dem.  Just as I understand people who honestly see abortion as murder voting Trump.  People have strong beliefs, and red lines they won't cross.  But the main people raising this, raising icecreamgate, etc. are not those posters here.  It is ex-Burnie people jumping on to criticise Biden and the 'establishment'.  Look back at most of the initial posts raising this as an issue.

Do I think that Dems should just stand in line behind the main candidate? No.  But I also think making attacks again and again because the Dems aren't doing everything to the degree you want as fast as you want, is shooting ourselves in the foot.  

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I read the paragraph like four times and it never, not once, mentions what voters should be doing or feeling bad about. It's about the establishment and the way they seem to take the ideas behind #metoo seriously only when it's not inconvenient to them (doesn't even say not they shouldn't have picked Biden, just that they shouldn't be so dismissive of the allegations if their previous attitude of 'listen to women' is meant to be taken seriously as anything more than a convenient political stunt on their part), not you.

You do know the "establishment" didn't pick Biden, right? And do you have any examples of them not treating #metoo seriously?  

[Ran]

On 4/25/2020 at 9:18 PM, Ran said:

A little more of the transcript, both from the start of the episode and then the continuing discussion after the phone call

https://twitter.com/FliedGaff/status/1253813651372249089/photo/1

 

Randomly decided to revisit this fellow's Twitter to see if he had produced any more of the transcript to see if any of the discussion at all touched on sexual abuse allegations, and found this, namely the fact that the late Jeanette Altimus (Tara Reade's mother) had Joe Biden as one of her earliest "likes" on Facebook.

Hmm.