Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: The Killing Hoax

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.  

Edited by ants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

........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.......

I know its human nature, and I know if the Republicans ramp it up that will be a natural response to fall back on.  But I don't think its an ugly truth that has to happen.  I think it is driven by the human nature to fit things into nice little boxes.  Biden is good, Biden is evil.  Reade is evil, Reade is good.  If we can accept that we don't know, that it is ambiguous, and that speculating can be harmful, we don't necessarily have to do this.

I do agree that most people will feel pushed to evaluate the claims, often overlaying their own biases.  I just don't think it has to that way, and the first step is to try and get people to take a step back and accept there is a question mark, but that shouldn't necessarily cause a change in behaviour.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

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. 

 

Of course they don't.  We've offered them Joe Biden.  Give them someone to vote for and my hope is they will engage. 

Make no mistake, though.  My optimism is not high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Inkdaub said:

Of course they don't.  We've offered them Joe Biden.  Give them someone to vote for and my hope is they will engage. 

Make no mistake, though.  My optimism is not high.

This isn't quite true, though. They were offered the same choices as everyone else in the democratic primary and the result is that it wasn't enough to carry Bernie even as far as the convention. It seems to me that counting on youth turnout is as spurious as not voting Clinton/voting for Trump in the hopes that it will "hasten the revolution". It's a gamble that thus far has not paid off in the slightest*. 

*While I do find it gratifying that a significant number of elections have gone strongly against Trump since 2016 and hope that will be reflected in Nov, it doesn't seem like the last four years will have been "worth it". Likewise, relying on a youth turnout in the hopes that you'll get a more progressive presidency is a big risk, except here the alternative isn't Trump, it was Biden. That's what the primary is for, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Leap said:

This isn't quite true, though. They were offered the same choices as everyone else in the democratic primary and the result is that it wasn't enough to carry Bernie even as far as the convention. It seems to me that counting on youth turnout is as spurious as not voting Clinton/voting for Trump in the hopes that it will "hasten the revolution". It's a gamble that thus far has not paid off in the slightest*. 

*While I do find it gratifying that a significant number of elections have gone strongly against Trump since 2016 and hope that will be reflected in Nov, it doesn't seem like the last four years will have been "worth it". Likewise, relying on a youth turnout in the hopes that you'll get a more progressive presidency is a big risk, except here the alternative isn't Trump, it was Biden. That's what the primary is for, surely?

Well, half the states didn't even have their primaries, and the last couple weeks of primaries was voting around coronavirus.  I didn't get to vote. 

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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?

I responded with incredulity about Wellstone being held up as an ideal standard in compared to Franken.  The only position I was dismissing was the idea the former wasn't complicit in the rampant sexual harassment going on in Congress during his tenure.  I was asked to provide evidence, which is fair, but I don't wish to.  Then, when I "reframed" the conversation concerning Biden, I wondered why it was being portrayed that still supporting Biden is cast in a shameful light based on what we know.  Instead of responding to that question, this was denied, and then I was shamed even more aggressively for not being appropriately sensitive on the internet.  Literally, I said:

Quote

 If I'm not allowed to ethically vote for Biden by your standards, why do you hold up Wellstone as an officeholder that at the least sat by and tolerated said standards?  I'm not smearing any one person, I'm smearing an era.  If you have arguments that I'm wrong about that, please do tell.

And then:

Quote

That's an argument for why voting for Biden should make you feel bad, plain and simple.  Another way to say that is this quote is telling me I should view voting for Joe Biden as unethical, which is what you're objecting to here.  You ARE guilting anyone that still decides to vote for Biden.  Without warrant.  I stand by that statement, thanks.  

And this all got blown up because of that?  That's being "stereotypically old school sexist"?  I may have been drunk and high and flippant and probably quite confusing because I was that drunk and high, but the original point about shaming and guilting anyone that disagrees with your perspective?  Yeah, I think that played out quite clearly.

7 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

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.

I watched Westworld and eventually passed out.  I also said, repeatedly and well before ever responding to you, that I don't object to anybody not voting for Biden.  As I tried to say to you in PM, I never meant to belittle your personal experiences.  In fact that's exactly why I never mentioned it at all.  I was trying to have a discussion isolated from that, and misguidedly thought doing so was showing you respect rather than treating you like a victim.  I realize that in and of itself was being insensitive, and I am sincerely sorry about that.  But you clearly do not wish to have a conversation with me based on anything of substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Inkdaub said:

Of course they don't.  We've offered them Joe Biden.  Give them someone to vote for and my hope is they will engage. 

Make no mistake, though.  My optimism is not high.

That's insane! They had every chance to vote for Bernie if that was who excited them to vote. The idea that any candidate was gonna bring Bernie supporters who didn't bother to get out and vote for him out in the main election is a complete fantasy. And the idea that the choice of Biden disenfranchised Bernie voters from participating in the primary is a chronologically impossible excuse everyone sees through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DMC said:

I responded with incredulity about Wellstone being held up as an ideal standard in compared to Franken.  The only position I was dismissing was the idea the former wasn't complicit in the rampant sexual harassment going on in Congress during his tenure.  I was asked to provide evidence, which is fair, but I don't wish to.  Then, when I "reframed" the conversation concerning Biden, I wondered why it was being portrayed that still supporting Biden is cast in a shameful light based on what we know.  Instead of responding to that question, this was denied, and then I was shamed even more aggressively for not being appropriately sensitive on the internet.  Literally, I said:

And then:

And this all got blown up because of that?  That's being "stereotypically old school sexist"?  I may have been drunk and high and flippant and probably quite confusing because I was that drunk and high, but the original point about shaming and guilting anyone that disagrees with your perspective?  Yeah, I think that played out quite clearly.

I watched Westworld and eventually passed out.  I also said, repeatedly and well before ever responding to you, that I don't object to anybody not voting for Biden.  As I tried to say to you in PM, I never meant to belittle your personal experiences.  In fact that's exactly why I never mentioned it at all.  I was trying to have a discussion isolated from that, and misguidedly thought doing so was showing you respect rather than treating you like a victim.  I realize that in and of itself was being insensitive, and I am sincerely sorry about that.  But you clearly do not wish to have a conversation with me based on anything of substance.

I think if you're flexible enough and you inhale sharply while bending at the waist you can get not just your ankle but most of your lower calf into your mouth as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

I think if you're flexible enough and you inhale sharply while bending at the waist you can get not just your ankle but most of your lower calf into your mouth as well.

I'll defer to your expertise on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, half the states didn't even have their primaries, and the last couple weeks of primaries was voting around coronavirus.  I didn't get to vote. 

That is a fair point imo. Looking at the map of remaining primaries it doesn't appear to be particularly likely that Bernie can turn around his current deficit, but to the extent that further primaries are possible I definitely support him getting further delegates as leverage for moving Biden to the left. So I'm happy to edit my previous statement to say that "the result so far" is overwhelmingly the choice of Biden.

There should be more primaries and people should get the opportunity to prove that the youth turnout for Bernie can make a difference, but so far it doesn't seem to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DMC said:

I responded with incredulity about Wellstone being held up as an ideal standard in compared to Franken.  The only position I was dismissing was the idea the former wasn't complicit in the rampant sexual harassment going on in Congress during his tenure.  I was asked to provide evidence, which is fair, but I don't wish to.  Then, when I "reframed" the conversation concerning Biden, I wondered why it was being portrayed that still supporting Biden is cast in a shameful light based on what we know.  Instead of responding to that question, this was denied, and then I was shamed even more aggressively for not being appropriately sensitive on the internet.  Literally, I said:

And then:

And this all got blown up because of that?  That's being "stereotypically old school sexist"?  I may have been drunk and high and flippant and probably quite confusing because I was that drunk and high, but the original point about shaming and guilting anyone that disagrees with your perspective?  Yeah, I think that played out quite clearly.

I watched Westworld and eventually passed out.  I also said, repeatedly and well before ever responding to you, that I don't object to anybody not voting for Biden.  As I tried to say to you in PM, I never meant to belittle your personal experiences.  In fact that's exactly why I never mentioned it at all.  I was trying to have a discussion isolated from that, and misguidedly thought doing so was showing you respect rather than treating you like a victim.  I realize that in and of itself was being insensitive, and I am sincerely sorry about that.  But you clearly do not wish to have a conversation with me based on anything of substance.

Oh wow, I didn’t realize your insensitivity and rudeness was because you were drunk and high. You are correct that those facts absolve you from the devastating consequence of your actions that someone said you weren’t being nice and should be nicer. 
 

I did genuinely want to have a conversation of substance with you, but that’s not what you were doing, so it wasn’t possible. But you are correct now in that I don’t want any sort of conversation with you at all and I will concede your rightness in that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leap said:

That is a fair point imo. Looking at the map of remaining primaries it doesn't appear to be particularly likely that Bernie can turn around his current deficit, but to the extent that further primaries are possible I definitely support him getting further delegates as leverage for moving Biden to the left. So I'm happy to edit my previous statement to say that "the result so far" is overwhelmingly the choice of Biden.

There should be more primaries and people should get the opportunity to prove that the youth turnout for Bernie can make a difference, but so far it doesn't seem to. 

Sanders stands to lose one-third or more of his statewide delegates, however, Sanders and Biden have already announced plans to form six joint task forces to work on key issues: climate change, criminal justice, the economy, education, health care, and immigration. Biden has also floated the idea of Sanders being allowed to keep his delegates but that still requires the DNC to change their 2020 delegate selection rules - they probably will in the name of unity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...