US Politics: OBAMAGATE - An American Story

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

49 minutes ago, felice said:

The debt should be held by the business, not an individual; there shouldn't be any personal risk, beyond putting in a lot of work that might not pay off and having to get a regular job if the business fails.

And you understand that loans for small businesses almost always require personal guarantees of the loans.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And you understand that loans for small businesses almost always require personal guarantees of the loans.

Even if the debt was held by the business, and equity shareholders were not liable for the debt, high amounts of financial leverage would increase the risk for equity share holders.

Of course, this a real problem because certain businesses are going to probably need credit to weather this. But, nobody wants this to turn out to be handout to the rich. I'm not certain about the best way to handle this, but I've been thinking about it ahwile.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Even if the debt was held by the business, and equity shareholders were not liable for the debt, high amounts of financial leverage would increase the risk for equity share holders.

Of course, this a real problem because certain businesses are going to probably need credit to weather this. But, nobody wants this to turn out to be handout to the rich. I'm not certain about the best way to handle this, but I've been thinking about it ahwile.

It’s a hard problem.  I had a job offer from a firm in early March that was retracted when Covid exploded.  I took another job in the meantime.  They reextended the offer Mid April and I asked what changed. They said they got Federal funding.  

I’ve stayed in the other job.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

PBS NewsHour has published a thorough and balanced look into Tara Reade's allegations by reaching out to some 200 former Biden staffers, and speaking with over 70 of them (the greater part of them being women), including 20 who were staffers at the same time as Reade and one, on the record, who worked next to her and has some distinctly different memories of her time there than what she has offered, believing she was let go for cause due to her botching the handling of constituent mail. Also a number of people saying that Biden eschewed having female staffers serving drinks because he didn't like the optics, the area where Reade said the assault happened not having any kind of private alcoves that the reporters could find, that Biden practically never held fundraisers in Washington and generally got out of DC for Delaware, and some other such things which are contrary to the picture Reade and those who vouch for her have painted. Well-worth reading.

I note with interest that Reade's attorney's response to all these on-the-record people discussing their recollections, indicating that they should be doubted because they may have selfish or politically-motivated reasons for what they say. A point very well-taken, Mr. Wigdor.

Seems to me most of this is "yeah, I don't really remember...but Joe is a stand up guy!" I mean, this says very little about anything. There is one guy who says she was bad at her job processing mail, but that guy's supervisor was like, "I don't remember that." A lot of "I don't remember" with added acknowledgements that they liked Biden. They may be being honest--he might have been a wonderful boss for most people. But it's the people who allegedly were hurt by him. Reade may be the only sexual assault allegation, but the allegations of uncomfortable feelings around Biden, unwanted touching, etc. is now being forgotten. This reminds me of how Louis CK, around 2013, was considered a great feminist who was helping young men see understand their own privilege. Of course, people were shocked to find out about his behind the scenes behavior.

What's it matter? Biden said don't vote for him if you believe Reade. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

Trump’s approval rating seems to have begun ticking back up despite worsening economic conditions and mounting death toll.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

 

[alguien]

47 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Seems to me most of this is "yeah, I don't really remember...but Joe is a stand up guy!"

I'm still undecided about this (not my vote, Trump is a monster who must be stopped, but this accusation). This is actually fairly substantive:

Quote

 

In interviews, staffers have also raised doubts about Reade’s claim that she was asked to serve drinks at a fundraiser, an incident she said she included in an official complaint of sexual harassment submitted while she worked in the office.

But more than 50 former staffers said they didn’t remember ever attending a fundraiser for Biden in Washington, D.C., when they were on his Senate staff. And some recalled an office policy banning most of Biden’s Senate staff from doing campaign work.

“Never would have happened,” said Melissa Lefko, who was a staff assistant in Biden’s office during the time Reade was there. “We all knew there was a very hard line there.”

Dozens of staffers, from different eras, said Biden rarely attended any events in Washington, racing to catch his train home to Wilmington, Delaware, as soon as Senate voting ended each night.

Further, two men who worked as junior staffers for Biden said the senator specifically did not want women to serve beverages, like coffee, or perform other menial tasks in his Senate office or on the committees he chaired. Men were typically asked to perform such tasks.

 

I mean, you can argue that they're lying, but this is a bit more than just "Joe's a nice guy who'd never do this!"

[Centrist Simon Steele]

43 minutes ago, alguien said:

I'm still undecided about this (not my vote, Trump is a monster who must be stopped, but this accusation). This is actually fairly substantive:

I mean, you can argue that they're lying, but this is a bit more than just "Joe's a nice guy who'd never do this!"

I see what you're saying, but that stuff isn't about the assault, is my point. And honestly, if someone came and asked me about, let's say, a Christmas Party where I worked fifteen years ago, I wouldn't remember if we had one or not. That's a long time ago. It's fair to say they don't remember that fundraiser, but because they don't remember, I don't think it's reasonable to say Biden--a politician--didn't have a fundraiser.

Is Reade's memory incorrect about it being a fundraiser? Was it some other kind of event? Those details don't mean nearly as much to me. 

[teej6]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

PBS NewsHour has published a thorough and balanced look into Tara Reade's allegations by reaching out to some 200 former Biden staffers, and speaking with over 70 of them (the greater part of them being women), including 20 who were staffers at the same time as Reade and one, on the record, who worked next to her and has some distinctly different memories of her time there than what she has offered, believing she was let go for cause due to her botching the handling of constituent mail. Also a number of people saying that Biden eschewed having female staffers serving drinks because he didn't like the optics, the area where Reade said the assault happened not having any kind of private alcoves that the reporters could find, that Biden practically never held fundraisers in Washington and generally got out of DC for Delaware, and some other such things which are contrary to the picture Reade and those who vouch for her have painted. Well-worth reading.

I note with interest that Reade's attorney's response to all these on-the-record people discussing their recollections, indicating that they should be doubted because they may have selfish or politically-motivated reasons for what they say. A point very well-taken, Mr. Wigdor.

Finally! This is what good journalism should be all about. I was getting tired of the reporting of this story even in the opeds of the Post and the Times. Finally someone took the time and effort to do proper investigative and objective reporting. 

[felice]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And you understand that loans for small businesses almost always require personal guarantees of the loans.

That's the current situation, yes, but it doesn't have to be the case. We're talking about a proposal that would radically transform the whole system.

[HexMachina]

13 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

In today’s business news, Facebook just bought Giphy.  

But in bigger news, the US government just issued an order, a world-wide order, that no company can sell microchips, produced on any kind of US-made equipment, to Huawei without the permission of the US government, by way of a special license.

 eta: the Giphy news is interesting because people are using more and more encryption. Facebook won’t be able to see what you are writing but since they will be able to track your Giphy search they will know the mood you are in, important tracking information for advertisers and others.

Doesn’t look like anything to me...

[teej6]

3 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Seems to me most of this is "yeah, I don't really remember...but Joe is a stand up guy!" I mean, this says very little about anything. There is one guy who says she was bad at her job processing mail, but that guy's supervisor was like, "I don't remember that." A lot of "I don't remember" with added acknowledgements that they liked Biden. They may be being honest--he might have been a wonderful boss for most people. But it's the people who allegedly were hurt by him. Reade may be the only sexual assault allegation, but the allegations of uncomfortable feelings around Biden, unwanted touching, etc. is now being forgotten. This reminds me of how Louis CK, around 2013, was considered a great feminist who was helping young men see understand their own privilege. Of course, people were shocked to find out about his behind the scenes behavior.

What's it matter? Biden said don't vote for him if you believe Reade. 

The bolded is not what the article states that ex Biden staffers said. The article states “None of the people interviewed said that they had experienced sexual harassment, assault or misconduct by Biden. All said they never heard any rumors or allegations of Biden engaging in sexual misconduct, until the recent assault allegation made by Tara Reade.“ This is very different from what you stated. They are not saying “they don’t remember” like you state, they are categorically denying any such behavior from Biden. The fact that most don’t recall Reade is not surprising as she worked there for 9 months and didn’t hold a prominent position. The person who remembers her does so because he was her supervisor and worked closely with her.

The fact that PBS reporters talked to 74 former staff members (from 1974 to 2016), of which 62 were women and none of them even heard rumors of sexual assault/ harassment/ misconduct from Biden let alone saw or experienced it, tells you something of the man’s character. Not just that, the article also states that there was a list of senators that people (women) avoided and Biden wasn’t on that list. It seems that most women who work in Congress (place doesn’t seem to be very good at keeping secrets) know the good guys from the creeps, and Biden fell in the former category. 

Most experts will tell you that rapists/ assaulters don’t just act on their impulses once in their lifetime, there will be a history/ pattern and other such instances of assault. And there’s a big difference between an unwelcome neck rub and rape.

As a survivor of assault, I can tell you there are things you don’t forget, like the place it happened. Decades later you can still see the place and the surroundings in your mind, these are things that are etched in your memory. The fact that Reade’s story about where it happened is vague — “a semi-private area like an alcove” — a place the PBS reporters state do not exist in the route between Biden’s office and the Capitol makes me doubt her allegation.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

17 minutes ago, teej6 said:

The bolded is not what the article states that ex Biden staffers said. The article states “None of the people interviewed said that they had experienced sexual harassment, assault or misconduct by Biden. All said they never heard any rumors or allegations of Biden engaging in sexual misconduct, until the recent assault allegation made by Tara Reade.“ This is very different from what you stated. They are not saying “they don’t remember” like you state, they are categorically denying any such behavior from Biden. The fact that most don’t recall Reade is not surprising as she worked there for 9 months and didn’t hold a prominent position. The person who remembers her does so because he was her supervisor and worked closely with her.

The fact that PBS reporters talked to 74 former staff members (from 1974 to 2016), of which 62 were women and none of them even heard rumors of sexual assault/ harassment/ misconduct from Biden let alone saw or experienced it, tells you something of the man’s character. Not just that, the article also states that there was a list of senators that people (women) avoided and Biden wasn’t on that list. It seems that most women who work in Congress (place doesn’t seem to be very good at keeping secrets) know the good guys from the creeps, and Biden fell in the former category. 

Most experts will tell you that rapists/ assaulters don’t just act on their impulses once in their lifetime, there will be a history/ pattern and other such instances of assault. And there’s a big difference between an unwelcome neck rub and rape.

As a survivor of assault, I can tell you there are things you don’t forget, like the place it happened. Decades later you can still see the place and the surroundings in your mind, these are things that are etched in your memory. The fact that Reade’s story about where it happened is vague — “a semi-private area like an alcove” — a place the PBS reporters state do not exist in the route between Biden’s office and the Capitol makes me doubt her allegation.

That's so weird that your bolded quote has another sentence after it, I'm sure you left it out on accident: "Former staffers said they believed Reade should be heard, and acknowledged that their experiences do not disprove her accusation."

That is not a "categorical denial." 

P.S. The "rumors" of sexual harassment, at least, have been revealed through dozens of pictures of uncomfortable women with his hands on them, and many women coming forward saying that they did not want his hands on them. Don't try to obscure what has happened. Biden has been a handsy creep for a long time.

No one claimed she forgot where it happened, by the way. And what is true for you is not true for everyone who suffers PTSD from assault. Your single experience is not transferable to other victims who undergo trauma. I will say, I am sorry for your experience.

PPS: In fact, people who undergo severe trauma do, in fact, often forget specific details. And that's okay. Here's an article on it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337233/

[teej6]

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

That's so weird that your bolded quote has another sentence after it, I'm sure you left it out on accident: "Former staffers said they believed Reade should be heard, and acknowledged that their experiences do not disprove her accusation."

That is not a "categorical denial." 

That still does not mean “they do not remember” as you stated. Your argument was premised on the fact that former staffers did not remember anything. They remember well enough that no instance of assault or harassment or misconduct was levied against Biden or even rumored about him. None of them experienced or heard of any such behavior from Biden. That is a “categorical denial” based on their experience. Now none of them were there at this so called semi private alcove to witness the alleged act. So how does a reasonable person say it didn’t happen with certainty. All they can do is vouch for Biden’s character (which all of them do in the article) and state their experience, which was positive according to all of them. Again, please tell me where in the article does it mention that the 74 people interviewed state “yeah I don’t really remember” as you state. And not remembering a member of the staff who worked for 9 months is nothing out of the ordinary. And the article states two people actually do remember her but never heard of any harassment or assault against her, unless you call being asked to dress appropriately in an office environment harassment.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 minutes ago, teej6 said:

That still does not mean “they do not remember” as you stated. Your argument was premised on the fact that former staffers did not remember anything. They remember well enough that no instance of assault or harassment or misconduct was levied against Biden or even rumored about him. None of them experienced or heard of any such behavior from Biden. That is a “categorical denial” based on their experience. Now none of them were there at this so called semi private alcove to witness the alleged act. So how does a reasonable person say it didn’t happen with certainty. All they can do is vouch for Biden’s character (which all of them do in the article) and state their experience, which was positive according to all of them. Again, please tell me where in the article does it mention that the 74 people interviewed state “yeah I don’t really remember” as you state. And not remembering a member of the staff who worked for 9 months is nothing out of the ordinary. And the article states two people actually do remember her but never heard of any harassment or assault against her, unless you call being asked to dress appropriately in an office environment harassment.

The article absolutely quotes people who don't remember. My argument is that, even as people interviewed said, this article doesn't do a thing. Some don't remember. Some say their view of Biden shouldn't discount Reade's accusation. The quotes about people not remembering are evidence I used, but they are not the premise of my argument. The premise of my argument is that 70 some people were interviewed, and we get statements like "several of those interviewed said...[blank]." Give me some numbers. What percentage of those interviewed said what exactly? How many people have worked for Biden in all that time between now and then? What about the women who have come forward in the last year saying he put his hands on them without consent? What about their coworkers?

For them to say they remember no accounts of allegations against Biden means they haven't been paying attention. Women have been coming forward. Images are all over the internet showing him touching uncomfortable women. 

By the way, many of history's greatest creeps had lots of people vouching for their character. That's why people get away with that shit for so long. They hide it well. He isn't molesting every single person he comes across. 

 

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

The article absolutely quotes people who don't remember. My argument is that, even as people interviewed said, this article doesn't do a thing. Some don't remember. Some say their view of Biden shouldn't discount Reade's accusation. The quotes about people not remembering are evidence I used, but they are not the premise of my argument. The premise of my argument is that 70 some people were interviewed, and we get statements like "several of those interviewed said...[blank]." Give me some numbers. What percentage of those interviewed said what exactly? How many people have worked for Biden in all that time between now and then? 

No, the article does not quote people who do not remember. It quotes 74 people who clearly remember an office environment that was friendly and safe for women, an environment where women were treated equally as men, where women held high positions. And, all this because they had a boss who promoted equality. Give you some numbers? This is not a survey. But if you want numbers, the article says it actually interviewed 74 former staff members (62 women) and all them said they never experienced any sexual assault or harassment or misconduct from Biden or heard of any rumors or allegations of such conduct from Biden. So that’s a number for you.

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

What about the women who have come forward in the last year saying he put his hands on them without consent? What about their coworkers?

What about them? Eight women (including Reade) accused Biden of touching them inappropriately or invading their private space in a way that made them feel uncomfortable. And 7 of these 8 women said that although Biden made them feel uncomfortable his behavior did not amount to sexual harassment or assault. The 8th woman first said it was not sexual, but then almost a year later changed her story and said she was assaulted. Care to guess who that woman is? The NYT interviewed the 7 women after Reade’s latest allegation, and they stuck to their initial stand that there was nothing sexual about Biden’s touchiness. 

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

For them to say they remember no accounts of allegations against Biden means they haven't been paying attention. Women have been coming forward. Images are all over the internet showing him touching uncomfortable women. 

First of all, the 74 people interviewed for the PBS article did not say “they remember no accounts of allegations” against Biden, they said they did not experience any assault or harassment from Biden and they never heard any rumors of the sort against him. This is very different from “they remember no accounts”. Secondly, they have paid attention and that is point of the whole piece. Again, 8 women came forward including Reade stating Biden touched them inappropriately and 7 of them said his touching while it made them feel uncomfortable was NOT in any way sexual assault or harassment.

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

By the way, many of history's greatest creeps had lots of people vouching for their character. That's why people get away with that shit for so long. They hide it well. He isn't molesting every single person he comes across. 

Don’t know what your point is here. In today’s environment, no one is going to put their reputation on the line and vouch for someone they suspect of sexual assault or harassment. Maybe you’ll find 1 or even 10 people who might do that, but 62 women covering for a man they suspect of committing assault? And many of people interviewed didn’t just vouch for Biden’s character, they said his office was a safe environment for women that promoted women’s equality.

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

No one claimed she forgot where it happened, by the way. And what is true for you is not true for everyone who suffers PTSD from assault. Your single experience is not transferable to other victims who undergo trauma. I will say, I am sorry for your experience.

PPS: In fact, people who undergo severe trauma do, in fact, often forget specific details. And that's okay. Here's an article on it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337233/

Reade claims it happened in a semi private alcove between Biden’s office and the Capitol. This is so vague. She should be able to go to that very spot and point out where it happened. It’s only a 10 min walk according to the PBS article between Biden’s office and the Capitol. The layout of the location hasn’t changed. The fact that the PBS reporters couldn’t find the “semi private alcove” is telling. Such a place doesn’t seem to exist. Besides, the report also states the 10 minute route was an open space (no secret semi-private spot) with a lot of traffic. And no, people don’t forget the location and environment where an assault, especially a traumatic experience like the one Reade describes happened. They may forget the time, date, year, but images are clear and vivid. And besides, this was not a place that was unfamiliar to Reade. She worked in the building. She may have walked through that space many times during her time there.

[ants]

10 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

OK I think I maybe blinked and missed something, what the fuck is OBAMAGATE?

Rorshach had an article on it.  

12 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Now, I haven't looked at the publication for years and years, and when I did way back when, it was for the fun read "The Krugman Truth Squad". But I sort of had an idea somewhere in the back of my head that National Review, while bad, wasn't crazy. 

Then, today, on Twitter, someone linked this piece and I have to ask: is this representative for their level of contribution these days? If so ... man, the US is screwed.

I believe it is all lies, but it would be good for someone to do a line by line debunking.  Just not me! 

[teej6]

10 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

OK I think I maybe blinked and missed something, what the fuck is OBAMAGATE?

A hilarious take on Obamagate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/13/obamagate-was-worst-crime-ever-committed-here-is-what-it-was/

[ants]

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Seems to me most of this is "yeah, I don't really remember...but Joe is a stand up guy!" I mean, this says very little about anything. There is one guy who says she was bad at her job processing mail, but that guy's supervisor was like, "I don't remember that." A lot of "I don't remember" with added acknowledgements that they liked Biden. They may be being honest--he might have been a wonderful boss for most people. But it's the people who allegedly were hurt by him. Reade may be the only sexual assault allegation, but the allegations of uncomfortable feelings around Biden, unwanted touching, etc. is now being forgotten. This reminds me of how Louis CK, around 2013, was considered a great feminist who was helping young men see understand their own privilege. Of course, people were shocked to find out about his behind the scenes behavior........

None of this means Reade allegations are untrue.  But they do paint a picture where for the assault to have occurred, it was a significant departure from the norm shown by Biden in his office.  It also clearly raises doubts about some of her claims:

• The circumstances of her leaving.
• The circumstances of her sexual harassment claim now look dubious
• Other elements of her stories of that time seem unlikely (not the assault allegation)

And saying some don't remember, seems to ignore that many people did remember.  

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

...... Reade may be the only sexual assault allegation, but the allegations of uncomfortable feelings around Biden, unwanted touching, etc. is now being forgotten. This reminds me of how Louis CK, around 2013, was considered a great feminist who was helping young men see understand their own privilege. Of course, people were shocked to find out about his behind the scenes behavior.

Sorry, but its when you say things like this you come across as a bad actor.  The article explicitly and clearly talked about this.  It found that this clearly did happen.  It found many didn't think it was an issue, but also that many didn't say it was nothing.  When the article talks right about this habit of Biden, says it did occur, says some were uncomfortable about it, for you to then say its "now being forgotten" really comes across as bad faith.  

4 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

..... And honestly, if someone came and asked me about, let's say, a Christmas Party where I worked fifteen years ago, I wouldn't remember if we had one or not. That's a long time ago. It's fair to say they don't remember that fundraiser, but because they don't remember, I don't think it's reasonable to say Biden--a politician--didn't have a fundraiser.

Is Reade's memory incorrect about it being a fundraiser? Was it some other kind of event? Those details don't mean nearly as much to me. 

I agree you might not remember a specific Christmas party.  But the idea that you wouldn't remember that your work either had them or not?  That there was a specific policy that people in one group were not to act as servers?  They might not remember a specific fundraiser, they should remember that there were none.  And if that isn't true, then there should probably be records - after all, all fund raising has to be recorded, right?  

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

That's so weird that your bolded quote has another sentence after it, I'm sure you left it out on accident: "Former staffers said they believed Reade should be heard, and acknowledged that their experiences do not disprove her accusation."

That is not a "categorical denial." .......

The article never said it was a categorical denial, neither did any poster here.  The article and posters have said it raises doubts about some of Reade's claims, which implies either her memory is faulty or she is being untruthful.  Either of which reduces her credibility.  

And nobody is saying she shouldn't be heard and acknowledged.  At least on this board.  But that doesn't mean she should be carte blanche believed either.  The metoo movement is that all women should be believed.  That doesn't mean all men are liars.  

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

......

What's it matter? Biden said don't vote for him if you believe Reade. 

Well, what is the matter is that its sounding more and more like the weight of belief should be with the Biden camp, when making a decision on who to vote for.  But you seem to not acknowledge anything that puts some doubts on Reade's accounts.  

[ants]

9 hours ago, felice said:

The debt should be held by the business, not an individual; there shouldn't be any personal risk, beyond putting in a lot of work that might not pay off and having to get a regular job if the business fails.

As Ser Scott said, this is pretty unrealistic in the current system.  A business inherently has no value and no capital when it starts.  Outside of some niche internet and other style companies, to get many businesses started requires capital of some sort.  Some of that can be expressed in work for no pay by the owner(s).  But often it requires actual money.  This can come from either the owner(s) themselves, or from loans.  Usually, you need loans because you don't have capital to put into the business. 

But saying the loan should be against the company is (sorry) ridiculous.  The person making the loan wants some guarantees (or they'll charge exorbitant interest).  The company has no physical assets.  That is why it is against the owner(s) personal assets.  

You seem to want to ignore that there is huge risk for starting a business.  In Australia 1 in 3 small business fail within 2 years.  That is personal hours and capital put into a failed project 1 in 3 times.  But you think they should only get 2x the lowest person's salary?  It also ignores that people may bring other skills to the table.  Should someone who sacrifices years of low pay while studying get paid the same as someone who chooses to move into the workforce immediately?  Should you not get any higher return for taking a risk? 

But then, I fundamentally against equality of outcomes.  I believe in equality of opportunity and a strong safety net.  

3 hours ago, felice said:

That's the current situation, yes, but it doesn't have to be the case. We're talking about a proposal that would radically transform the whole system.

In which case don't call them businesses, because you're envisaging something totally different.  If nobody is putting any risk or anything else into a business, 2x wage gap from floor to ceiling maybe fine.  But what you're describing (or not really doing so) is nothing like the current structure, and if you want to discuss it and how realistic it is, some more details would be appreciated.