-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Joe Biden denies he sexually assaulted a former Senate aide
- Thread starter BADMAN
- Start date
- Status
Yea people here won't care for it, but most people irl will.
Probably the best response he could have given tbh, I don't think it is going to change any minds either way.
It is but it's hard to tell how much of it is the system turning on her. This opinion piece is the main counter-argument I've seen passed around:
Why I'm skeptical about Reade's sexual assault claim against Biden: Ex-prosecutor
If we must blindly accept every allegation of sexual assault, the #MeToo movement is just a hit squad. And it's too important to be no more than that.www.usatoday.com
Note: I posted that as an answer, not an endorsement of the viewpoint
Wow, can I just say that as a person whose had to have a lot of women recount sexual assault stories that this guy is full of shit.
Me too. I knew it wasn't going to be just a simple denial like we usually get but I also knew it wasn't going to be the political suicide mission that some people on here were wanting.
They obviously aren't. They are speeches, conversations with foreign heads of state, policy papers etc. You wouldn't donate personnel files to your alma mater. Mika going on and on about that was weird
Personnel files, staff etc. but yes that is his charge. He should release them though.
Even if they are what he says they are, he should still release them. I can see conspiracy theories forming out there around them.
I'm only mentioning it because like 4 questions in a row was on that subject. I'm currently in this dead state where I'm just repeating what I see.
The boomer logic and spinning this into "people misunderstand my caring nature so I will dial it back" is exactly what makes the entire statement insincere and basically lip service. I know he's trying to avoid damaging his career but that will happen whether he addresses it sincerely or not.
He needs to go out there say that he has a problem, that he has had it for a long time and regrets it that he has hurt and disrespected women for so long and he needs to see a therapist about his urges to touch or kiss women in his immediate vicinity against their will.
The University of Delaware thing really does seem like a red herring. You'd never keep personnel records there and it'd almost certainly be illegal to turn over private data like that without the consent of the employees to a place where it'd become public record/publicly available.
That'd be equivalent to a Presidential Library keeping HR papers from everyone.
Obviously Biden's private conversations, etc with Obama and other world leaders could be used as campaign fodder/spun out of context if the full archive was opened up.
That'd be equivalent to a Presidential Library keeping HR papers from everyone.
Obviously Biden's private conversations, etc with Obama and other world leaders could be used as campaign fodder/spun out of context if the full archive was opened up.
Im not gonna compromise my ideals to get someone like him in power. It would literally make me no better than the people I've criticized for decades now.
Also, while MSNBC is giving biden the chance to say in his words what happen, I seriously doubt that they will give Tara that chance. And are already reforming Kavanaughs image by saying that no one should be put through that scrutiny (Not trump or biden). Death of a movement and all it took was a bit of cognitive dissonance.
You understand that this will never happen though, right? He can do this privately (not that I believe he would), but publicly it would be an automatic Trump + 4 years.
OP
OP
Yes. In the MSNBC interview, he was asked why he isn't doing it multiple times and he straight up refused on the grounds that there's nothing there relating to personnel.
You know the alternative. And there's no pathway (short of him dying) to other person being on the other side.
Sometimes you get your hands dirty for a good reason. That's how real life is.
This is a pretty dangerous line of thinking, most commonly used to justify police states.
"If you're innocent, why wouldn't you just let the police search you? This is assuming you're not hiding anything however"
"If you're not a criminal, why would you care that the government is accessing doorbell cameras/phone records/web metadata and surveilling everyone? This is assuming you're not hiding anything however"
"If you're innocent, why would you plead the fifth? Assuming you're not hiding anything however"
etc etc
OP
OP
He was asked by Mika if he would have an independent search done through the files for only Tara Reade related files. He still refused.
User Banned (2 weeks): inflammatory accusations
Probably because Joe sexually assaulted someone.
This is just what shitty people tell themselves to convince themselves they're not shitty people.
No one running for office would release their personal papers. Those are only released when a person retires. Anything in there (like their notes about some politician/world leader being an asshole for example) would be used against them politically.
I don't want Joe to fail, but the allegations are credible and we need to take it seriously.
Yeah, you can definitely tell he was a federal prosecutor as he's more concerned with poking holes in the story than finding the truth (also the weird Sanders - Russia connection he not so subtly tries to make). But I'm guessing a (far better) PR version of the main topics will end up as the main argument against the allegation. Even if it's not fair to the accuser.
It's a shitty situation where neither side can ever prove themselves right and the truth could very well be in a gray area. All we're ever gonna get is hot takes from 3rd parties. There's no winners to be had here, especially for other victims of sexual assault.
OP
OP
He's a candidate running for president who is currently trying to convince people he's not a rapist............
and if he has an independent search done (which won't find anything because why in the world would he donate such a thing to his library?) the goalposts will just move. What happened when Hillary's emails were independently audited for work-related mail?
Because it's ridiculous. Personnel files can't be donated for public archives. He's smart not to allow a fishing expedition that could only get ammo for Republicans. If you recall, Hillary's emails on a private server were only exposed because she was trying to be transparent about Benghazi.
People have created conspiracy theories from jet contrails. I'm simply not interested in living in a society that bends over backwards to satisfy conspiracy nutjobs all the time.
No. She's said this all along. Any complaint filed would not have anything to do with the allegation of rape.
This really does make sense. Unless we have another prominent politician come out and refute this by saying the National Archives wouldn't have the Personnel records and such complaints, I have no reason to believe he's lying about this. We'll see what happens, but I think an investigation into the Archive records is a good move and bring me from 0% believing Biden to like 35%.
Without weighing in on the accusations themselves: I don't this defense applies to people running for public office, let alone the highest office.
I guess the question is for other senators/presidents, what do their archives look like and whether it's normal to have personnel files or whathaveyou in them. Due to Biden's long and at times questionable history in the Senate, he's probably said some really stupid and bad shit he doesn't want to come out now. The question is whether the archives have anything involving specifically Reade's complaint.
That's going to be good enough for the people voting.
It will remain covered on Fox News and I expect that will do more damage than good.
It will remain covered on Fox News and I expect that will do more damage than good.
I'm not trying to judge this on a curve or anything along those lines. I have intentionally not jumped in to these discussions prior because I'm not quite sure how to feel about it. If anything resembling a credible accusation emerges, societal expectation should be that the claim should at least be investigated - At least. But in a lot of threads where it has nothing to do with anything, in a lot of threads where this is discussed, it seems like no matter what is said or done, some users here and elsewhere aren't going to give Joe Biden credit for anything at all here.
To be clear, Biden wasn't my first, second, or third choice for the nomination of the Democratic Party. But in this scenario, I have literally no idea what those users actually want from him if they're being genuine and sincere. He denied these allegations pretty strongly a year ago. He's now put out what I, at least, consider to be a more than decent statement with regards to this issue, and actually welcomed an investigation into this. He's made a request to bring up these documents if they exist so that everyone can see it. He will have no control over what they put out. But some of you are still acting like this isn't enough.
Insofar as the University of Delaware stuff, I'm sure that's where all the latest conspiracy theorists will go to, but I mean, who would donate personnel files to that specific archive? It doesn't really have any bearing there, and never did. I don't understand why that would be "suspicious" or acting like he's hiding something. This seems to be a more than earnest effort to clear his name. Taking claims of sexual harassment or assault seriously is a good thing, but in this case, we should look at the totality of the situation and at least afford Joe Biden some semblance of innocent until proven guilty here.
To be clear, Biden wasn't my first, second, or third choice for the nomination of the Democratic Party. But in this scenario, I have literally no idea what those users actually want from him if they're being genuine and sincere. He denied these allegations pretty strongly a year ago. He's now put out what I, at least, consider to be a more than decent statement with regards to this issue, and actually welcomed an investigation into this. He's made a request to bring up these documents if they exist so that everyone can see it. He will have no control over what they put out. But some of you are still acting like this isn't enough.
Insofar as the University of Delaware stuff, I'm sure that's where all the latest conspiracy theorists will go to, but I mean, who would donate personnel files to that specific archive? It doesn't really have any bearing there, and never did. I don't understand why that would be "suspicious" or acting like he's hiding something. This seems to be a more than earnest effort to clear his name. Taking claims of sexual harassment or assault seriously is a good thing, but in this case, we should look at the totality of the situation and at least afford Joe Biden some semblance of innocent until proven guilty here.
Well he's basically calling them to release any complaints so we'll see
OP
OP
Hillary was always screwed because of those emails that got deleted. I don't think releasing the University of Delaware files would end this entirely, but it would squash a bug that is currently standing out. There's no downside for him to do it either.
I agree with this ostensibly. Except for the fact that Joe Biden is a public figure. A simple search for files with her name in it would be enough. He is entitled to not give it up, the police shouldn't force him, but the people he expects to vote for him should expect him to. If he doesn't then the public should hold him accountable politically. Additionally, if his goal is to defeat Trump and he is innocent then it's a moral necessity for him to fully discredit this story.
The line of thinking you use feels similar to when people justify saying horribly offensive things with "But freedom of speech" (Obviously you're acting in much better faith than the people that use that argument, but you get my point nonetheless). Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral and arguing against an action does not mean you think it should be illegal.
- Status