Reason Roundup

On Biden Sexual Assault Allegation, Silence Then Hypocrisy

Plus: Backlash to Amash's presidential run, new SCOTUS cases, and more...

|

After all but ignoring sexual assault allegations made against former Vice President Joe Biden, many famous figures in the #MeToo movement are now rushing to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's defense or suddenly discovering the importance of nuance and restraint in discussing unproven allegations.

New testimony from people who knew her in the early 1990s suggests that Tara Reade complained privately of being sexually assaulted by Biden in 1993 when she worked as a staff assistant in his Senate office. Those accounts have proven especially problematic for women rumored to be on Biden's shortlist for vice president.

Former presidential candidate and Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) said last year that she believed three women (Lucy Flores, Caitlyn Caruso, and D.J. Hill) who accused Biden of inappropriate touching or kissing. "I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it," Harris said at an April 2, 2019, event for her presidential campaign.

But now that she's allegedly among Biden's top choices for VP (and regularly doing digital events with him), Harris has nothing to say about the Reade allegation and has gone full "We have to do everything we can to elect Joe Biden."

Meanwhile, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams have said they don't believe Reade, while Hollywood's self-appointed #MeToo spokeswoman Alyssa Milano has suddenly discovered the virtues of due process.

"As we started holding politicians and business leaders and celebrities around the world accountable for their actions, it was easy to sort things into their respective buckets: this is wrong, this is right," Milano writes in Deadline. But now, as credible allegations against Biden surface, Milano has suddenly discovered that "the world is gray" and conversations about sexual assault should have more "nuance."

"Believing women was never about 'Believe all women no matter what they say,' it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default," Milano claims.

That's true enough for many folks. But for Milano (and some Democratic politicians and pundits), the assertion that "it's okay to look at evidence and come to your own conclusion" was very much missing when they weren't political allies or personal friends of the accused.

Some typically enthusiastic supporters of sexual assault survivors are trying to sidestep hypocrisy allegations by declaring that Reade is simply not credible. For instance, MSNBC contributor Jill Wine-Banks tweeted: "I support #MeToo and instinctively believe accusers, but as a former prosecutor, I use critical thinking to evaluate allegations and test credibility. Tara Reader's accusation against Biden fails the test of credibility."

Gillibrand told CNN, "When we say believe women, it's for this explicit intention of making sure there's space for all women to come forward to speak their truth, to be heard. And in this allegation, that is what Tara Reade has done. She has come forward, she has spoken, and they have done an investigation in several outlets. Those investigations, Vice President Biden has called for himself. Vice President Biden has vehemently denied these allegations and I support Vice President Biden."

"I know Joe Biden and I think he's telling the truth and this did not happen," Abrams told CNN on Tuesday.

But wherever you stand on Reade's credibility, it's absurd to pretend there's significantly less reason to believe Reade than there was Christine Blasey-Ford or any other recent accusers of high-profile political men. And the things people are citing in order to undermine Reade's credibility are the very things Democrats and progressives have waved away when it came to allegations against Republican politicians, "shitty media men," etc.

"The job description for Joe Biden's running mate has suddenly become more complicated: the Democratic vice presidential nominee must now defend him against sexual assault accusations without looking hypocritical," noted Politico this week.

And it's not just that they're women and thus expected to stand for all feminism; many of these particular women have made protecting women and girls from sexual abuse a huge part of their public image and political performance. As Politico's Marc Caputo notes, many of Biden's potential running mates "played lead roles in opposing the Senate confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. … leaving a trail of unambiguous statements at sharp odds with the role they'll need to play for Biden in a general election."

This week gave people an additional reason to believe Reade's allegations about Biden: a former neighbor of Reade's, Lynda LaCasse, who told Business Insider that Reade had told her about the alleged assault back in 1995.

"We were talking about violent stories, because I had a violent situation," said LaCasse, who describes herself as a strong Democrat. "We just started talking about things and she just told me about the senator that she had worked for and he put his hand up her skirt."

Another contemporaneous account: "Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-'90s, told Insider that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, D.C., had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns."

Also this week, The Intercept confirmed (in a piece that further explains Reade's timing on coming forward) that Reade began reaching out to the National Women's Law Center about Biden this past January, but was rebuffed.

The new stories are bringing more attention to interviews leftist podcaster and journalist Katie Halper did in March, talking to Reade, her brother, and a close friend of Reade's. Both of them "recall Reade telling them about it at the time," writes Halper.

Reade's friend told Halper she encouraged her not to go public with the allegation at the time out of concern for public scorn without any real resolution. "It was the '90s," she told Halper, suggesting that no one would have cared or believed Reade back then. "Back then people assumed girls just get over it," she said. Reade's brother Collin Moulton said his mother had urged her to report the assault to police, but he had suggested she just move on. "I wasn't one of her better advocates," he told Halper. "I said let it go, move on, guys are idiots."

Asked about Reade by The Daily Beast, prominent women's groups would not comment. Reporters Scott Bixby and Hanna Trudo "contacted 10 top national pro-women organizations for this story, including Emily's List, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Organization for Women. Most organizations did not respond to a detailed request for comment about the allegation by Tara Reade."

Bixby and Trudo draw parallels between the current situation and Democrats' sudden disinterest in sexual assault allegations and workplace harassment of women when the person being accused was Bill Clinton.

"I don't have any insight on why women's groups have been largely silent on the accusations," writes Erin Gloria Ryan at the Beast today, "but if I had to guess, it's because what Biden is alleged to have done pales in comparison with things Trump has been accused of, and that Reade is, at press time, the only person to make serious assault allegations against Biden."


ELECTION 2020

Reason's Matt Welch talks to U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.), who is now officially the first Libertarian Party (L.P.) member of Congress. Amash's Wednesday announcement that he's seeking the L.P. presidential nomination set off the standard wave of complaints about how Americans owe it to their nation to vote only for either a Democrat or a Republican.

"If we want more liberty and smaller government, then Amash should have just stayed in Congress," suggests a Washington Examiner op-ed.

"If Amash gets the Libertarian nomination and stays in until the end, he could wind up going in the books as the guy who voted to impeach Trump one year, then tipped the election to him 11 months later," writes Joe Walsh in The Washington Post.

But it's "far from clear, if history is any guide, that [Amash] will hurt Mr. Biden more than Mr. Trump," writes Liz Mair in The New York Times. "What libertarians like me hope is that he enables a growing number of Americans to register their dissatisfaction with the major parties and their policy agendas."

Related: Welch, Nick Gillespie, and Brian Doherty talk about how Justin Amash's campaign changes the 2020 presidential election.


QUICK HITS

  • SCOTUS will also consider whether a rule that groups receiving anti-HIV funding "have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking" is a First Amendment violation.

Advertisement

NEXT: Celebrity Criminals Are Leaving Prison Early Because of COVID-19. What About the Drug Offenders?

Reason Roundup Election 2020 Joe Biden Sexual Assault MeToo Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Celebrities Rape Media Feminism Politics Identity politics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

339 responses to “On Biden Sexual Assault Allegation, Silence Then Hypocrisy

  1. But wherever you stand on Reade’s credibility, it’s absurd to pretend there’s significantly less reason to believe Reade than there was Christine Blasey-Ford or any other recent accusers of high-profile political men. And the things people are citing in order to undermine Reade’s credibility are the very things Democrats and progressives have waved away when it came to allegations against Republican politicians, “shitty media men,” etc.

    Talk to the Hubs, like Steven Miller did

    https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1255689984519991297

    1. Trump-averse conservative tweeter takes ‘Professional NeverTrumpers’ to the woodshed for failing so spectacularly to live up to their own alleged principles
      https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2020/04/29/trump-averse-conservative-tweeter-takes-professional-nevertrumpers-to-the-woodshed-for-failing-so-spectacularly-to-live-up-to-their-own-alleged-principles/

      1. Someone’s hopefully waking up to the fact that the NeverTrumpers are largely parasitic grifters looking for a host to provide them sustenance.

        1. Like a virus….

          1. What’s most amusing about that claque is that they’ve essentially sold out their own principles for ass-pats from people who see them as useful idiots at best, and murderous trash at worst.

            Kristol was complaining the other day about not having a home within the current left as well, and someone nuked him by pointing out that it was the second time he and his ilk failed to be welcomed as liberators.

            1. Do I believe that Brett and Squi had many a night of boofing? Yes!
              Do I believe that Trump ordered the Quid Pro Quo? You goddamn right I do!
              Do I believe Biden groped Tara? Of course!
              To believe otherwise you’re just diluting yourself.

              Amash for Liberation 2020!

              1. With arguments as thin as yours, you should be real careful about diluting yourself further

                1. I agree but you get my point!

                    1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. wrt.No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
                      Find out how HERE……More here

            2. Kristol was complaining the other day about not having a home within the current left as well, and someone nuked him by pointing out that it was the second time he and his ilk failed to be welcomed as liberators.

              lol

              1. Ooohhhh. I’m looking for aloe for that burn, and I’m not within a thousand miles of Kristol. Well done.

                Goes on the same shelf as the crack to Patton Oswalt, after he lauded Hillary Clinton for being tough, “If you could recognize a sick woman, you wouldn’t be a widower now.”

                1. If you could recognize a sick woman, you wouldn’t be a widower now

                  ouch

    2. Hello.

      Fist is losing his grip and touch.

      1. Pan. Demic.

      2. Yes, Rufus, all our wrists are getting sore.

    3. Fuckin LOL, someone tagged the BidenInsultBot account in the Miller thread. Sad thing is the bot is more coherent than he is.

  2. …many famous figures in the #MeToo movement are now rushing to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s defense or suddenly discovering the importance of nuance and restraint in discussing unproven allegations.

    And the movement was so good about maintaining credibility up until now.

    1. The movement was bullshit from the start.

      1. “Believing women was never about ‘Believe all women no matter what they say,’ it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default,” Milano claims.

        Gillibrand told CNN, “When we say believe women, it’s for this explicit intention of making sure there’s space for all women to come forward to speak their truth, to be heard….”

        Well, damn. I was going to say I have to believe Milano and Gillibrand are telling the truth about what they meant by “believe women” because, you know, #BelieveWomen, but now that they’ve told me I’m free to consider the evidence and decide for myself whether or not to believe the particular women, I’m going with “lying corrupt sack of shit” for Gillibrand and “lying moron sack of shit” for Milano and, no, I don’t believe either one of them are telling the truth about what they meant then and what they mean now.

        1. It’s the bizarro world of “clarifying” what you said by saying the exact opposite when you get your ass stuck in the vise [or is it vice in this case]. I wonder what would happen to a political or prominent figure who either honestly admitted their opinion is only driven by political opportunism or humbly admitted that now they see the larger picture or the other side, and copped to being flat-out wrong before.

          Would they simply have to disappear or be lauded because now they were being honest? I suspect we won’t have to know the answer to this question any time soon.

    2. Personally, I blame him for raping 1 in 4 who attended college.

      1. He had to work overtime on Friday nights, operating at speeds of over 105 RPM (rapes per minute).

    3. Am I the only one with Déjà vu?

      Almost 30 years ago, last minute allegations of sexual harassment were dredged up as an 11th hour attempt to block a conservative Supreme Court nominee. The entire progressive establishment was absolutely convinced that the accuser was telling the truth, complainEd that women needed to be believed, and claimed that women who come forward face retaliation so great that no one would dare come forward unless she was telling the truth, that men “didn’t get it,“ that it was time for the “year of the woman,“ and sexual harassment became the hot issue of the day. Until, of course, the nation’s leading democrat was accused of misconduct far worse than anything alleged against the supreme court nominee. Then suddenly it was acceptable not to believe the women, it was time to “move on,” and anyone who persisted in believing the accusers was himself accused of “sexual McCarthyism,“ whatever that is.

      30 years later, what did we see? And 11th hour allegation of sexual misconduct raised against conservative Supreme Court nominee, progressives uniformly declaring that all women must be believed, and then changing their minds on a dime when the nation’s leading Democrat is accused of conduct far worse.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      1. The funniest* part of all of this is, if Reade’s story is to be believed, Biden DID retaliate against by demoting her.**

        *Funny is subjective.
        ** I take this with the same seriousness that I took the Kavanaugh and Thomas accusations. Which is to say with a metric ton of salt

  3. Compare how de Blasio treats Muslims vs Jews

    https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1255689984519991297

    1. What’s funny is that this won’t really affect that many people in NYC, other than the Orthodox community which isn’t all that influential. The Yom Kippur/Passover Jews who go to synagogue once or twice a year, and who make up most of the Jewish population in NYC (the Jon Stewart types), aren’t really going to care all that much and probably agree with the sentiment themselves. They may kvetch a bit for show, but they’ll ultimately shrug and follow along.

  4. WHO lauds lockdown-ignoring Sweden as a ‘model’ for countries going forward

    https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/who-lauds-sweden-as-model-for-resisting-coronavirus-lockdown/

    Dr. Mike Ryan, the WHO’s top emergencies expert, said Wednesday there are “lessons to be learned” from the Scandinavian nation, which has largely relied on citizens to self-regulate.

    “I think there’s a perception out that Sweden has not put in control measures and just has allowed the disease to spread,” Ryan told reporters. “Nothing can be further from the truth.”

    1. Barack Obama Goes Golfing at Country Club the Day After Michelle Urged African Americans to Stay Home
      https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/04/29/barack-obama-goes-golfing-during-coronavirus-quarantine-n386764

      1. Many field hospitals went largely unused, will be shut down
        https://apnews.com/e593ba57f37206b495521503d7e5e4c5

        1. I was joking that the fly over by the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds was just a way to make people look up while the USS Comfort sneaks out.

      2. Well yeah, he’s only half black, so…….

        1. And it’s just his white half that loves to golf.

          1. Well, his black half sure can’t dish the rock, so…

            1. Are you saying he’s a “black hole” … I’m sorry, I don’t feel right about that.

              1. He’s a chucker

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Btf3AooK8

                And I’m ashamed of all of you who took that a different way before clicking the link.
                Ashamed!

    2. The most notable part about that story isn’t what we’ve known all along, but the complete dismissal of the WHO at the end. They writer made sure to end the article with a note that “Top Scientists™ say that bazillions will die because of it.”

      The media are such fucking whores. At this point I’m pretty sure I hate the media far more than government.

  5. https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/04/30/questions-reporters-might-ask-liberals-if-they-didnt-suck-n2567837

    If this disaster was caused by the Trump’s administration being unprepared for the pandemic, what was the date after the Obama administration left office that America stopped being prepared?

    We keep hearing about how Trump was not ready for this once-a-century occurrence, but that kind of presumes that Obama was. Negligence requires unreasonable behavior, and if no administration ever bought and stored up 100,000 ventilators, then how was Trump unreasonable for not doing so? So, if Obama was all cocked and locked for the Chinese coronavirus, when did this cocking and locking cease such that America stopped being ready?

    What was the name of each Democrat congresscreature and senator who would have supported Trump closing down America during the failed impeachment?

    If Trump was supposed to have done something, it’s fair to ask if his opponents would have let him or #resisted, right?

    1. The disaster isn’t the virus it’s our response to it. There was never any reason to shut everything down. If the Dems were smart that’s what they’d attack him on. “Trump closed everything down unecasassarily!”

      1. Except he didn’t, governors did. Then again the media would cover for the Dems and there are enough people that are too stupid to really know how this works and would believe them.

      2. Sure, but then there’s the unending video tape of them screaming to shut everything down. Between YouTube and video everywhere, life can become a bitch when you start to “clarify” what you’ve said by saying the opposite.

        1. What’s truth got to do with it?

          Anderson Cooper interviewed Pelosi, directly asking her whether her advice on 24th Feb for everyone to come to SF’s Chinatown for shopping was inconsistent with her criticisms of Trump’s handling of the pandemic. She said that it wasn’t like that at all, she was just pushing back against Trump’s anti-Chinese racism.

          There’s almost nothing on video that they can’t spin however they need it to appear in any given moment.

    2. “If this disaster was caused by the Trump’s administration being unprepared for the pandemic, what was the date after the Obama administration left office that America stopped being prepared?”

      Precisely 12:01, January 20, 2017.

    3. As always, the best thing the government could have done was get out of the way. Why didn’t Trump tell the FDA to lift their outrageous bans on non-CDC covid tests? How did no one in the administration realize what a catastrophically bad idea that was and fix it, or at least raise it as an issue?

  6. Your morning Alex Berenson thread: emails from people being destroyed by the lockdown:

    https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1255692443657416707

    1. Is Alex Berenson still covering the nation’s epidemic of marijuana-fueled psychotic cannibalism?

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913867/

  7. Economic disaster!!!!

    Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch’s net worth has dropped below $50 billion!

    He lost over $4 billion yesterday.
    He’s down over $13 billion this year.
    He’s only the 16th richest person on the planet.

    This. Is. Not. Normal.

    #OpenTheBordersToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. This has got to be the weirdest fetish among the commentariat. And we have SIV.

      1. I don’t have a fetish. People who want to own deadly military style assault weapons have a fetish.

        I simply share the Koch / Reason commitment to making the richest people on the planet even richer. And I point out how that just isn’t happening (well, except for Jeff Bezos) in this abysmal Drumpf economy.

        #BillionairesKnowBest

        1. “People who want to own deadly military style assault weapons have a fetish.”

          …mmmmm..type it slower…

        2. The guy with the fetish always presumes his actions are reasonable and can be explained in terms that everyone else finds reasonable, yet they do not.

  8. Jails and prisons comprise 80 percent of the biggest coronavirus hotspots in the U.S.

    And with a few more laws on the books we can up the number of incarcerated and flypaper our way out of this mess.

  9. Why do we care about this Milano person?

    1. Embrace of the Vampire.

      1. Oh you meant regarding current issues? I don’t.

    2. Because the Pepperidge Farm chocolate pretzel Milanos are tasty.

    3. Because she used to be hot back in the ’80s and ’90s? Oh, and she apparently had not one but two abortions within a couple of months of each other back in the early ’90s because it would have been inconvenient and damaging to her “acting career” to have to raise kids at the time. So #stunning and brave.

      1. I’m fine with abortion being legal, but this virtue-signaling by actresses like Milano and Michelle Williams about how brave they were to get one to preserve their career is solipsism.txt. They’re basically admitting they sacrificed their kids to Moloch so they wouldn’t have to put their career on hold to raise a child, while condemning the right for putting economics above human beings.

        1. I’m fine with abortion being legal, but this virtue-signaling by actresses like Milano and Michelle Williams about how brave they were to get one to preserve their career is solipsism.

          That’s pretty much where I’m at as well. It’s legal for them to get all the abortions they want. Fine, whatever, but I’ll be God-damned if I’m going to sit here and join in with the trained seals clapping and cheering them on. “So stunning! So brave!” Give me a fucking break.

        2. They can have all the abortions they want, but all it says about them is that they couldn’t figure out contraception.

          The real bravery was from those who let Harvey Weinstein fuck them to get their careers on track.

          1. Little did they realize that they were getting those careers started, they were also banking a future opportunity to gain some free press and sympathy for complaining about it later. A bit of double-dipping there… pun intended.

    4. I think it’s fine to point out when people who try to insert themselves into political conversations are full of shit.

      Sure, for this crowd, it’s preaching to the choir, but she’s been desperately clawing for headline attention for the past four years. So when it starts to become obvious that she’s a feckless cunt, the world should shine as bright a spotlight on that as possible. She’s been the one whoring for attention after all.

      1. Kinda like when she called on all women to join her in boycotting giving their partners sex until Georgia changed it’s laws on abortion. Meanwhile Georgia and Georgia lawmakers are scratching their heads at the stupidity of this threat, while you just know her husband was, “Just hold the fuck on there Phoebe, you bitch”.

  10. https://www.dailywire.com/news/leading-swedish-epidemiologist-slams-british-scientist-whose-paper-triggered-worldwide-lockdowns-normally-quite-arrogant

    I think it’s not very good, and the thing that they miss a little is that any models for infectious diseases —they’re very popular, many people do them — they’re good for teaching, they seldom tell you the truth because — I make a small parenthesis — which model could have assumed that the outbreak would start in northern Italy, in Europe, Difficult to model that one. And any such model — it looks complicated, there are strange mathematical formulae, and integral signs and stuff, but it rests on the assumptions. And the assumptions in that article will be heavily criticized for — I won’t go through that, it would take the rest of your day if I went through them all. The paper was never published scientifically; it’s not peer-reviewed, which a scientific paper should be; it’s just an internal departmental report from Imperial. And it’s fascinating; I don’t think any other scientific endeavor has made such an impression on the world as that rather debatable paper.

    Business Insider noted, “In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.” Business Insider also noted, “Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the Imperial paper, saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak. Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”

    Some people ripped Ferguson for reportedly overestimating the potential death toll in the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. Ferguson allegedly estimated 200 million could die, but the actual total was reportedly less than 1,000.

    1. If there is one thing that needs to come out of this circus, it is that the entire field of epidemiology needs to be junked and started over from scratch. These models have turned out to be completely worthless. The entire field seems to be nothing but junk science.

      1. If you retool and rethink your models over an extended period of ‘science’ to get your own scientific conclusions down before publishing, they can be useful. The problem is that the bad, early models are taken as The Word of the Lord and used to drive policy without any accountability. Climate, epidemiology, it doesn’t matter.

        No expert will be fired over this, while millions of the peons lose their jobs.

        Want people to lose “faith in science”? Don’t hold ‘scientists’ accountable to the people they hurt. Peer Review is just a shield now; we are accountable to each other, not to you.

        1. No expert will be fired over this, while millions of the peons lose their jobs.

          Not only will no expert be fired, but when the number of deaths does turn out to be much lower they’ll claim it was because of the massive lockdowns and social isolation policies and people like Ferguson will most likely be hailed as “Big Damn Heroes” for triggering a massive worldwide panic attack.

          1. All the more incentive to inflate your predictions of disaster. If you can scare people into a response, you can claim to have saved their lives.

            Hopefully, Sweden and S. Korea can be used as counter examples.

            1. They won’t be. They’ve already deemed Sweden to be an ‘outlier’.

              I had someone tell me – in the SAME argument sequence – that the whole is doing the same thing (hence, how can they all be wrong?) but when dismissing Sweden, all countries and jurisdictions are different. He’s a big proponent of any ‘one size fits all’ solution but then says ‘one-size’ can’t be used because Sweden.

              They don’t want Sweden to succeed. I have a doctor friend passively-aggressively rooting for them to fail. It boggles the mind.

              They’re numbers are worse than Denmark and Norway!!! Yes, but in line with Canada and Holland and better than Belgium. Point?

              The point isn’t how they’re doing relatively – because as noted every country is different to a degree – the point is they will have achieved SIMILAR numbers WITHOUT SHUTTING DOWN.

              Meanwhile, here we’re assaulting every conceivable cherish value of liberty and dumasses letting this virus control them are cheering it on.

              The new line is “we’re not out of the woods’. How convenient. The virus is here to stay. So are they telling us we’re never getting out of the woods? Is this Hotel California?

              This ‘new normal’ is getting real and WE’RE NOT INVITED.

              We’re the Kulaks.

              1. whole world

              2. Sweden will continue to be an example, and not a totally different country you can’t learn from, to argue for Socialism.

              3. Come back to this in 4 or 5 months. Sweden should have gotten more ‘herd immunity’ so their death rate should slow more than those elsewhere. Places that close and then open are more prone to a second wave.

                It ain’t over til it’s over.

            2. I continue to be astounded by the brilliance of this movie.

              1. For me it’s Demolition Man.

                1. Agreed. Less brilliant, more astounding.

                  1. Demolition Man is the most prescient movie of all time

          2. The Ferguson model also modeled “if mitigation steps taken” path. That path is also way hot, think it was 600k if all preventative steps are taken in the US.

      2. In some ways, I wonder how possible predicting disease spread even is. It seems to me to be on a similar order of difficulty as predicting economic activity, since it relies so much on the complex interactions of billions of people.

        1. Good comparison.

        2. I agree with you. I think it is very difficult if not impossible. To even have a chance you have to know exactly how the virus spreads. It is a catch 22. To understand how the virus spreads, you have to see how it spreads in reality. But to make the models work, you have to understand how the virus spreads. And the entire point of the model is to understand how the virus spreads before it actually does.

          So, yeah, I think if the outbreak involves a new virus, there is no way to model its spread so that you can prevent it.

        3. I have read that, for systems that complex, it’s often better to push decision making down to the lowest possible level — maybe even the level of the individual — and let the whole be guided by those individual decisions. Something called an “invisible hand”.

          I don’t know. Maybe worth a try?

          1. Quarantining works if the outbreak is small such that you can just isolate everyone who has it. But, once the stuff spreads beyond a critical mass, there is no stopping it. I think all the “bend the curve” bullshit is just that; bullshit. You either catch it and stop it early, or just forget it and go on with life and do your best to deal with the consequences.

            1. Well, that the curve has been bent to hell and back and they STILL want to keep the quarantine going because NYC is an outlier and run by blithering idiots, it belies the truth.

              As somebody pointed out, if the disease epicenter was in Charlotte, NC — we would not have seen national quarantines et al. But because it was in NYC and thats where the entire media establishment is (why? Who knows. You’d think an industry going tits up might move to less expensive locales), we all got fucked.

              De Blasio fucked my life far more than any other politician in the country.

              1. NYC isn’t even an outlier. They never even used some of their pop up hospitals or the hospital ship.

                a third of NYC deaths are nursing home related. They had awful policies in place. Their subways continue to run.

      3. ” the entire field of epidemiology needs to be junked and started over from scratch. ”

        The problem is not epidemiology, the problem is what people think it can do.

        Epidemiology is a lot like music theory in that they are descriptive and much less predictive, especially when considering anything new or untried.

      4. Perhaps a bigger problem is that people don’t understand how science works. Preliminary results and hypotheses are often wrong. The big problem here was that people took some very preliminary projections, based on very little data, and ran with them. The data is still pretty poor. Any honest scientist writing about it needs to make it clear that the current data is a big mess and conclusions are very likely to change.

        1. I don’t disagree with that, but Niel Ferguson is a special case. His track record consists of being wrong by at least two orders of magnitude, and always in the “sky is falling” direction. This time pundits and policymakers listened to him, and we all got burned.

      5. From what I’v gathered, it’s not epidemiologists who are using the model.

        I’ve seen dozens of reports showing that epidemiologists don’t even use the type of model because it’s not good for this type of thing.

        Except that models get all the Right People™ hot and bothered, so that’s what they go with.

        In an effort to not even SEEM like they under reacted, they go with the model that gives them the justification to live out their Social Organizing fantasies.

        I’m not convinced they even believe the models, but they sure as hell provide cover.

  11. A little late? Gov. Cuomo FINALLY orders NYC to disinfect the subway cars every night
    Posted at 1:13 pm on April 29, 2020 by Greg P.
    https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/04/29/a-little-late-gov-cuomo-finally-orders-nyc-to-disinfect-the-subway-cars-every-night/

    1. Up next: Hospitals in NY see a surge in cases of inhaling poison fumes in subways.

      1. Are those fumes from the disinfectant or the homeless population?

      2. TRUMP!!!

    2. Man, I cannot believe Trump….oh wait, it wasn’t Trump?

      So, no ball dropped?

      Awesome

    3. To be fair, it might be because procuring disinfectant is tough these days, especially in bulk.

      1. The fuck it is. The primary disinfectant for this kind of purpose is a polyquat that is used in a 0.1% concentration, meaning that each of the 10 barrels of what I bought today alone would disinfect the entire NY subway system 2-3 times over.

        That said, it is a meaningless gesture because killing off any residual virus at 2 am isn’t going to protect anyone who is riding with or touching the same surfaces as a COVID carrier 4 hours later. Disinfecting may stop some cases from being passed, but overall as a system, it’s ineffective. This is about optics, but optics can also give people a false sense of security. The problem is that in NYC, you have over 4 million passengers per day because this is how they get around.

    4. secretly poisoning the homeless

    5. They are closing the system from 1AM to 5AM. I believe there is a very expensive plan to assist with essential workers getting to and from work between those hours.

      NYC and NYS are going to run up a huge bill with their actions.

      The fun part is De Blasio and Cuomo thinks the feds OWE them the money.

      1. They likely don’t think that the feds owe them anything, but it makes great political fodder in an election year rant about Trump and to their constituency who has been repeatedly told over the past 50 years that they are victims and owed a living. This is what NY does. Which is why they were demanding 40K ventilators, a hospital ship and tent hospitals that were never used.

  12. Birth control is back in the Supreme Court next week.

    Unless someone is trying to prohibit individuals from obtaining their own, wtf are we bothering with here.

    1. I suspect it is not birth control, I suspect it is baby killing.

      1. Well, that is a way of preventing births. Killing pregnant women would be another.

      2. My wife had two controlled births. She has risk factors, so they were induced.

  13. SCOTUS will also consider whether a rule that groups receiving anti-HIV funding “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” is a First Amendment violation.

    I thought those two were the same thing.

    1. If you walk up to a hooker it’s prostitution while if you drive up it’s trafficking. Or something.

      1. I thought the hooker was the prostitute while the pimp was the trafficker.

    2. What about requiring a policy explicitly opposing violations of the Global Exchange of Military Information and other arms control treaties?

  14. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/387034.php

    …And whether or not the original Wuhan virus was engineered and deliberately released, or spread as the result of accidental contamination of a lab worker is irrelevant. China must be judged according to what it did after the release: by restricting domestic travel but allowing international travel from Wuhan to the rest of the world, Beijing satisfied the key elements of any reasonable definition of terrorism.
    No, the Communist government is not a sub-state actor using violence to realize its self-determination, or some organization with a religiously defined apocalyptic end-state it wishes to realize through its attacks on innocents. But by allowing Chinese citizens to seed the world with a deadly virus that has taken more American lives in just four months than all the years of the Vietnam War, Xi Jinping’s government has deliberately targeted civilians for death…

    …When we say boycott China we are telling American-in-name-only companies to get out of China – now. Whenever there is an alternative to “Made in China,” we will take it. We can buy New Balance athletic shoes instead of Nikes. We can buy from our local farmer or Hormel instead of Smithfield. We don’t have to upgrade our iPhone until Tim Cook stops funding the CCP’s techno-totalitarian dystopia. We’re telling GM don’t import Envision SUVs from China. We’re telling Twitter to de-platform CCP propaganda mouthpieces, not Americans.

    When we say boycott China, we are telling Washington to stop sending our tax dollars to our mortal enemy – no excuses. We are telling stand-up elected officials like Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and President Trump we have their backs. And we’re telling the others to stop peddling excuses, get a backbone, and stand up for America. Don’t let the Chinese Communists control our food (Smithfield), our media (AMC theaters, Universal, Disney, Hollywood), our energy, and our technology (Huawei, Lenovo).

    When we say boycott China, we are telling the CCP’s apologists in big media, big banks, big corporations and the Washington swamp who sold out America and her people – time’s up…

    1. “”We don’t have to upgrade our iPhone until Tim Cook stops funding the CCP’s techno-totalitarian dystopia.””

      That would last until Facebook apps quit working on your old version.

      I hate to break it to some people. But Apple isn’t funding them, Apples users are.

  15. “…(and regularly doing digital events with him)…”

    You REALLY didn’t write that, did you?

    1. Stinky finger Joe is all about the “digital events”.

      1. Pretty sure Harris was doing digital events with Willie Brown years ago.

        1. She’s a true pro.

    2. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1!!!!!! I didn’t even catch that when I first read it. Well done, sir! Help yourself to 1,000 internet points.

    3. That was a good one, Sevo. No, really, that’s a compliment.

  16. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a Kansas voter-ID law unconstitutional.

    I can’t wait to see how they try to implement immunity passports.

    1. Asking for ID as you walk toward the polling place: good
      Asking for ID AT the polling place: bad

      Asking for ID at any point within the US: good
      Asking for ID to cross the border into the US: bad

  17. https://spectator.org/cuomo-on-covid-19-in-nursing-homes-its-not-our-job/

    The costs have been high — especially for the Black and Hispanic residents of New York City’s nursing homes. An analysis of the demographics of the death rates by National Public Radio (NPR), revealed that New York City’s nursing homes with the highest percentages of African Americans and Latinos were also the nursing homes with the highest death rates. New York’s African American residents of nursing homes in the five boroughs were significantly more likely to die from coronavirus than any other nursing home residents in the city.

    The NPR analysis of the 78 nursing homes in New York City in which six or more residents have died of COVID-19 found that seven of the 11 nursing homes with the highest number of deaths were overwhelmingly those homes housing the greatest number of residents of color. The Franklin Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing in Queens, where 80 percent of the residents are residents of color, suffered 45 virus-related deaths out of 315 residents. At Kings Harbor Multicare Center in the Bronx, where 83 percent of the residents are residents of color, there were 45 virus-related deaths among the 727 residents. Also in the Bronx, the Plaza Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, a facility where 88 percent of the residents are persons of color, there were 35 virus-related deaths out of 781 residents.

    Gov. Cuomo expected the federal government to supply his state with ventilators and personal protective equipment, but the governor has said on several occasions that “it’s not our job” to provide his own state’s nursing homes with personal protective equipment when they need it. In fact, the governor has actually threatened the licenses of nursing homes in the state, saying that “they have to do the job they’re getting paid to do, and if they’re not doing the job they’re getting paid to do, and they’re violating state regulations, then that’s a different issue — then they should lose their license.”

    1. Yeah, It’s their job to deal with the Covid epidemic that he made much worse. What a fucking asshole

    2. It’s obviously Trumps job. Duh.

    3. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that those nursing homes are also the most crowded and piss-smelling ones in the city.

      1. Those would be the ones managed by the city.

  18. Judge people not for what they have done. No. Judge them by their politics. If you share their politics then they didn’t do it no matter what, and if you do not then they did it no matter what. Facts shmacts. Politics is all that matters. Duh!

  19. Sen. Gillibrand: “She has come forward, she has spoken, and they have done an investigation in several outlets.”

    That is a lie.
    Sen Gillibrand: “Those investigations, Vice President Biden has called for himself.”

    This, too, is a lie.

    Sen Gillibrand: “Vice President Biden has vehemently denied these allegations and I support Vice President Biden.”

    Shockingly enough….ALSO a lie. Not her supporting him…that was never a doubt. Joe hasn’t once commented on it. But maybe we should ask the new member of his VP committee Chris “Waitress sandwich” Dodd.

  20. “I don’t have any insight on why women’s groups have been largely silent on the accusations,” writes Erin Gloria Ryan at the Beast today, “but if I had to guess, it’s because what Biden is alleged to have done pales in comparison with things Trump has been accused of, and that Reade is, at press time, the only person to make serious assault allegations against Biden.”

    BREAKING NEWS: Trump Discredits Sexual Assault Victim

    1. When was Trump accused of abusing political power and authority in order to molest someone?

      1. Trump has been accused of much worse things. And when you compare things Trump has been accused of with things that Biden has been convicted of, Biden is a freakin’ saint!

        1. True. Many assholes have accused Trump of treason, murder, racism, rape, perjury, and more. But they are all BS, so far.

          Biden’s accuser has two corroborating persons who at least partially back her story. His actions should be investigated by the press. Probably the statute of limitations has run out.

    2. So, they’re going by the threshold of someone has done something worse somewhere, so why worry about our guy?

      Voting for Trump doesn’t seem bad when we consider what Hitler did. Just kidding. Trump is literally Hitler.

    3. So that’s the standard now? Sexual assaults are only bad now if they are worse than whatever it is that Trump is supposed to have done?

      1. Yup. Many have made the argument “yes Biden may have raped Reade, but we need to set that aside because Trump.”

    1. How manu weeks are goong to go by until this staunch libertarian site comments on this abuse of government power?

      1
      2
      5
      Never?

      1. I was really hoping it would be mentioned today. Not that I thought it would. But I’m sure once Amash comments on it they’ll be all over it.

        1. Silly rabbit. Principles are for kids.

        2. I’m sure there will be something on it later today; Sullum seems the most likely commentator when it drops. This shit all got revealed last night, so I’m not going to hack on them for not releasing an article first thing in the morning.

          1. Good point. Still would have been very easy to at least link to any coverage of it in Quick Hits.

            Only time will tell.

          2. Didn’t they skip the reveal from last Friday’s release of the lawyers doing backyard deals with the DoJ prosecutors to avoid their own culpability if they convinced Flynn to plead?

      2. Looks like the correct answer is zero.

    2. Since when is the FBI using a perjury trap a “bombshell?” It’s literally their MO every single day.

      1. Martha Stewart approves of this message.

        1. For some reason, I read “perjury trap” a “honey trap,” and I started to wonder: who did they send to seduce Martha Stewart?

          1. Snoop Dogg?

            1. would watch

  21. To better understand most people, especially on the left, remember that they live in a world of feelings.

    They feel good about Biden feeling bad about what he did (or didn’t) do. They feel bad about Trump feeling good about what he did (or didn’t) do.

    Actually, it may be a braver new world of feelings about feelings. Now I feel sad.

    1. Feelings and intentions. No matter what Biden or any Democrat does, it’s all based upon good intentions. Contrast that with Trump, rich people (except rich Democrats), and Republicans. They obviously have bad intentions which makes them bad people. Amazingly all they need to do is repent and be born again into the Democrat Party, and then they will be unable to do wrong.

      1. Socialism is judged by its promises, capitalism by its results (regardless of how much government action was involved when things go south).

        Venezuela isn’t socialism, its a dictatorship. How are those mutually exclusive, since a dictatorship is certainly capable of owning the means of production? Venezuela was called socialist until things got bad. Bad = capitalism. Good = socialism.

        1. That’s the Road to Serfdom. Socialism devolves into dictatorship because concentrated power is required for a government to be everything to everyone.

          1. Government doesn’t fail, it either lacks power or is being thwarted by enemies (kulaks, hoarders, wreckers, deplorables), or both. Therefore the government needs more power, more control, and its enemies crushed.

            Look at the 2016 election. Even now, the left can’t just admit they fucked up and nominated the one Democrat Trump could beat, and are having a “hold my beer” moment as they nominate Biden. It has to be a conspiracy. They can’t screw up. They can’t fail. Dark, outside forces were at work. Biden can fall asleep during the Presidential debates, and admit to assaulting Ms Reade on national TV, and his loss will be due to Teh Russians.

            Can’t imagine how that leads to dictatorship.

              1. I can’t tell if we’re on 3 or 8.

                1. I think we’re to 9.

              2. I was hoping that was gonna be a video of him dropping some truth bombs. I was looking forward to some Hayek plosives.

                1. “Hayek plosives”

                  Splosives.

                  If you’re gonna dad joke at least land the fucking punch line.

                  1. There was a lady here who used that as her handle.

  22. “The job description for Joe Biden’s running mate has suddenly become more complicated: the Democratic vice presidential nominee must now defend him against sexual assault accusations without looking hypocritical,” noted Politico this week.

    Hillary?

    1. How far we’ve come from Clarence Thomas being grilled and “lynched” for saying a few off color words to a woman vs. crickets for a presidential candidate who finger banged an employee without her consent.

      1. I didn’t watch much of his confirmation, I was only in middle school. But I remember watching some of it and thinking “They sure are making a big deal about a bad joke about pubic hair.”

    2. How dare you accuse HRC if appearing non-hypocritical?

      1. I thought I was praising her skills.

    3. I get the feeling Hillary’s “protecting” of Biden would look a lot like the “protecting” a race horse owner does when the horse breaks a leg.

  23. On Biden Sexual Assault Allegation, Silence Then Hypocrisy

    Confession is good for yoir soul, lizzie. You’re almost there.

    #YOUTOO

    1. So, too arrogant to simply apologize for all the shit you’ve been saying about her. Got it.

  24. Whelp, ENB covered the story and didn’t make excuses for Biden or Dems. Maybe Reason is finally beginning to recover from 4 years of TDS?

    1. As I mentioned above, let’s see how/if they cover the new Flynn FBI info.

      1. Leo’s already given them their angle:
        “They do that to everybody, so nothing really to see here!”

        1. Do you doubt that the FBI uses perjury traps all the time?

          1. No, I’m certain they do. And the correct response should be to expose more of it, not less. Do you doubt that there is a large percentage of people that are ignorant that they use it, and we would be better of if they were enlightened?

        2. By the way, Reason should report on it. I agree with that.

          My comment above was more about the PJ Media article calling this behavior a “Bombshell.”

          1. I think the reason it’s being labeled as such, is because people who made the claim originally were mocked by the MSM.

          2. The bombshell is the contradictory evidence that goes against the Media’s gaslighting (including by Amash and largely Reason), the last few years.

            National Review has done a much better job (due to Andrew McCarthy) on covering these revelations and pointing out the issues with Flynn (and Page/Trump later) since day one. Where Reason and others have largely held to the narrative until this information was actually revealed.

    2. Maybe all the Trump ass kissers here finally noticed that Reason criticizes both major parties on a regular basis.

      1. Right. A bunch of us, after years of coverage, all changed our opinion, all at once.

      2. And the socks mentioned below are here already. You were pretty quick to switch to your socks. Hilarious.

        Yes, ignore reality and try to convince us Reason has been nothing but fair… ignore the last 2 years of Russia Collusion articles, the impeachment articles built off of those inferences, etc.

    3. If you ask the TDS crew… Reason has always been unbiased and fair. See yesterday’s threads when they started socking.

  25. But wherever you stand on Reade’s credibility, it’s absurd to pretend there’s significantly less reason to believe Reade than there was Christine Blasey-Ford or any other recent accusers of high-profile political men.

    If Biden was threatening to put our uteri back in chains you can bet things would be a little more uniformly applied for some of these journalists and advocacy groups.

  26. I’m not a fan of bothsideism, but I think there really is plenty of hypocrisy to be found on both sides of the Joe “Fingers” Biden accusation.

    Anybody who is pushing this story to expose the blatant hypocrisy of the left on social justice issues is doing God’s work. If you’re trying to see Joe Biden subjected to mistreatment, however, that’s a different story.

    My understanding is that Hillary Clinton is getting ready to endorse Joe Biden, despite these allegations, and that more or less makes it like Monica Lewinsky all over again. It may have taken 20 years–from Monica Lewinsky to Harvey Weinstein–for the feminist movement to regain its currency with average Americans, Gamergate notwithstanding, and the blatant hypocrisy being put on display by everyone from the public faces of the #MeToo movement to Hillary Clinton practically ensures that feminism will go back to being dismissed by average people as silly shrillness like it was before #MeToo.

    There is legitimate hypocrisy on the other side of the equation, too. When people claim that Joe Biden should be given the same mistreatment Kavanugh was subjected to, they should take a long look in the mirror. If you ever argued that 25 year old allegations shouldn’t be taken seriously during the Kavanaugh confirmations, then you have no business changing your position now. If your position changes when it’s no longer about appointing a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court, then you’re no different from Democrats who are dismissing charges against a presidential candidate just because he’s a Democrat.

    Even worse than that are those who really are guilty of the worst flavor of bothsideism of all and seem to be arguing with all seriousness that the allegations against Biden should be treated seriously the same way they should have been treated against Kavanaugh. This position appears to have been taken by someone who writes here, and it shouldn’t be a surprise. Many of us seem to assume he’s writing against Title IX and government interference in speech and allegations on campus when he’s really saying that it’s unfair that Title IX isn’t applied equally to both sides. This is vile social justice warrior bullshit, and expanding social justice unfairness to include figures on the left doesn’t make it any less vile.

    Because the principles of reason and justice are being violated equally and without prejudice for everyone–does not make them reasonable or just or libertarian.

    1. I’m for Biden get the same vile treatment as Kavanaugh, because that is the only way the left is going to learn just how bullshit that type of treatment is. Title IX runs free to destroy lives because the people most invested in pushing it never have to worry about it destroying their lives.

      It’s like the flipside of the golden rule. If you can’t stand being treated the same way that your moral system demands you treat others, then your moral system is flawed and needs to be changed. And far too many people will only realize that when they or someone they personally like is the one on the receiving end.

      1. “I’m for Biden get the same vile treatment as Kavanaugh, because that is the only way the left is going to learn just how bullshit that type of treatment is.”

        Injustice isn’t the solution to injustice.

        It can’t be.

        And making people defend themselves from 25 year old allegations is fundamentally unjust.

        Now is the time to score points by showing people that you’re against injustice–even when the accusations are against someone you hate.

        1. Injustice isn’t the solution to injustice.

          Ah, let the Left do whatever they want with total impunity. Make accusations against their opponents public 24×7, keep quiet about accusations against them, until repetition makes people believe their opponents are totally guilty and they are totally innocent.

          We must be better than them, and if we lose and wind up in a socialist hellhole, at least we can take pride in our gentleman like nature.

          Don’t hurt your arm patting yourself on the back.

          On second thought, fuck you and your ‘principles’. We firebombed Tokyo and Dresden to fight off totalitarianism; we can ask what’s left of Joe Biden about an allegation.

          1. “Ah, let the Left do whatever they want with total impunity. Make accusations against their opponents public 24×7, keep quiet about accusations against them, until repetition makes people believe their opponents are totally guilty and they are totally innocent.”

            That’s not what I’m advocating at all.

            I’m absolutely in favor of using this opportunity to expose and denounce the left for the disgraceful hypocrisy. You can tell because I wrote, “Anybody who is pushing this story to expose the blatant hypocrisy of the left on social justice issues is doing God’s work.”

            Exposing the truth of the left’s hypocrisy does not require you to advocate what amounts to injustice.

            1. Yes it does, Ken.
              Where have you been the last 30 years?

              1. You’re an idiot.

                1. An idiot who regularly calls out your errors.
                  What does that make you?

              2. No, Ken is right. There are plenty of ways to shame and abuse Sleepy Joe that are not unjust.


          2. …we can ask what’s left of Joe Biden about an allegation.

            Amusingly while I think this was probably a threat in context, my first thought was ‘yeah, dementia is a bitch’.

            1. Not a threat – I meant the dementia.

        2. The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it evenly. This isn’t about scoring points, this is about stopping the injustice for everyone, not just the perpetrators. Making exceptions to a standard for the people who are trying to enforce a standard on everyone else is how unjust standards are allowed to propagate.

          Biden and his supporters can either stop pushing this insane standard of guilty upon accusation, or they can live by the insane standard of guilty upon accusation. Giving a third option of enforcing the standards on their enemies while simultaneously letting them have a pass to living up to it themselves won’t stop further injustice.

          1. “The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it evenly.”

            Absolutely false.

            The best way to normalize injustice is to enforce an unjust law evenly.


            1. The best way to normalize injustice is to enforce an unjust law evenly.

              Indeed. And that is why American Slavery is a thriving institution today.

        3. Gotta disagree with you Ken, if for no other reason then that there’s a good possibility that Biden made like the Clintons and suppressed any who spoke out against him back then, that certainly seems to be the case with Tara. So if there was never truly a chance for justice for the victims, how can this be injustice?

          You’re right in that making people defend themselves against 25-year-old accusations is unjust… in a vacuum. If they were the ones pushing for these rules to apply to everyone though, then I say its fair to judge them on their own bullshit, even if we agree that under normal circumstances this would be wrong.

          1. “There’s a good possibility that Biden made like the Clintons and suppressed any who spoke out against him back then, that certainly seems to be the case with Tara.

            Do you imagine that average people should be subjected to serious consideration for 25 year old allegations because there’s a good possibility they might have done something?

            That’s a witch hunt.

            1. Which is why I clarify in my next statement that yeah, it would be an injustice if it was a regular person, but in this case Biden and friends were 100% for this type of treatment, until it started looking like they might have to face it too.

              I honestly believe that the Democrat leadership, along with leading members of the media and the FBI, would qualify for RICO with the stuff they’ve been doing for decades. Laws are only just if they apply equally to everyone, and that’s not the case, it hasn’t been the case for a while. If the system isn’t just, then there’s no reason to follow and support it.

              1. “I clarify in my next statement that yeah, it would be an injustice if it was a regular person, but in this case Biden and friends were 100% for this type of treatment, until it started looking like they might have to face it too.”

                Isn’t the reason the left pushes these things on public figures because they want to make this the new norm?

                Sexual harassment wasn’t a thing before Anita Hill.

                If the principles of justice require us to ignore the allegations against average people, they also require us to ignore the allegations against public figures in the same situation.

                If the Democrats’ behavior on this is blatantly and indefensibly hypocritical, then we should take this opportunity to expose and denounce them for it. Emulating their hypocritical disregard for the principles of justice is not the solution. It’s probably the worst possible outcome–and not just for Joe Biden. We may be living with the new norms long after Joe Biden has died of old age–just like average people are still living with the new norms after Anita Hill.


                1. Isn’t the reason the left pushes these things on public figures because they want to make this the new norm?

                  In a word, no.

                  They want the new norm to be that any Republican who is accused to be subjected to months of inquiry and as much Press as possible in order to damage their campaigns or damage political figures they don’t agree with but have no reasonable arguments against that will sell to non-Democrats.

                  They also want this new norm to include never mentioning, or just brushing off, any accusations made toward their party to help their preferred politicians or nominees to advance their political agenda.

                  They do this precisely because it is a political weapon called propaganda, not because they give any fucks whatsoever about ‘justice’. You blatantly misunderstand what is going on. They are framing this as a fight between good and evil because it’s ok to burn evil alive or cut off it’s head. It’s less ok to do that to actual people though, so they do what they must to dehumanize the opposition.

                  Well, showing them the blatant hypocrisy of that with guys like Biden and Frankin are instrumental in coming around to their senses on this.

                  There’s only so much cover propaganda can provide, as in ‘You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.’

                  If this nonsense happens to get Trump reelected, maybe Democrats will see the error of this tactic. Even if they don’t, perhaps voters will get sick of it and start ignoring it. Because it boils down to the voters, you see. Except in Democratic primaries, that is.

        4. “Violence isn’t the solution to violence, so it’s no use fighting back”
          -Ken Schultz

          1. If you’re equating willfully inflicting injustice with self-defense, then you’re even dumber than I thought.

            1. And you appear to be intentionally missing the point, which is surprising me.

              It is self defense. Progressives use this issue, as well as racism and other issues, as a weapon in the public and political sphere. They are advancing their agenda on the rest of us when they do.

              1. Shh.
                Ken’s embarrassed that he looks stupid.
                The only defense he has for his inflated self-conceit is lashing out, instead of admitting his paradigm might not be perfect and actually learning something.
                Thats why killing Suleimani led to attacks from Hezbollah and a full ground invasion of Lebanon, and also why blackjack and poker are the exact same!

      2. But social justice is DIFFERENT! By definition, it leads to arbitrary and unjustifiable positions, because “just because”. It cannot function without hypocrisy, and any attempt to hold practitioners to logic and consistency denies the base concept of social justice. By design it requires different moral ethics for accusers and targets–no golden rule required or compatible.

        1. For giggles, I looked up the Google definition of ‘Social Justice’. Here is what I found.


          so·cial jus·tice
          noun
          justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
          “individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice”

          Then, having read that, looked up what Google has to say about Communism.


          com·mu·nism
          /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
          Learn to pronounce
          noun
          a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

          I mean, according to social justice it would appear that Communism would always have more ‘Social Justice’ than any Capitalist system.


          Cooincidence?

          1. Most SJWs are communists. Some know that they are. Other’s don’t realize it.

            1. I will now slam my head into a concrete wall 20 times for putting an apostrophe in “others”.

              1. You’re forgiven for that, but I’m not so sure I can forgive you for implying that some social justice warriors aren’t communists. It’s right there in the name: what system can you imagine that would have more ‘social justice’ than communism?

                I might suppose a SJW would oppose communism because the state owns all, which would not be perfectly equal, but it would be far more equal than any other system yet conceived. And because the State is us, we would all own it so even then it’s pretty ‘equal’ by those measures.

                I have to conclude that any SJW is by definition a communist with a slightly nicer sounding name. I guess it doesn’t poll as well when you share the name of an inherently murderous ethos. That’s a basic PR truism I’d think.

                1. All communists are SJWs, but not all SJWs are communists.

                  Some non-communist SJWs being the KKK, Nazis, inquisitors, taliban

                  1. I mean, the KKK is pretty cool with socialism these days, NAZI were explicitly a socialist party (until the socialist leaders were killed), and the Inquisitors and Taliban couldn’t give two fucks about social justice on Earth. They’re religious nutjobs, everything on Earth has to do with after death for those types. Usually, that involves controlling people on Earth but for the Taliban type that boils down to ‘kill people who don’t believe in this particular and specific version of a sky father’. They are, in many ways, the antithesis of social justice.

                    1. Yes, SJWism is inherently collectivist and totalitarian, but it does come in different brands.
                      The point is those Nazis, klansmen, jihadis, etc were all militantly fighting to impose their conception of justice on society as a whole.
                      All 3 of those examples specifically, and I’m sure you can think of more, were founded to gain power using the motive of correcting a recent perceived injustice (WWI defeat and Versailles treaty, Civil War defeat and reconstruction, Israeli victory) that had befallen them

                2. Remember how good the USSR was to the Womyns?

    2. I mostly agree, except this bit:


      This is vile social justice warrior bullshit, and expanding social justice unfairness to include figures on the left doesn’t make it any less vile.

      It might not make it any less vile, but it at least makes everyone suffer equally. Something about bad laws being enforced diligently to change the voters minds on an issue…

      As long as one ‘side’ gets essentially a free pass, it’s a bludgeon that can be used indiscriminately for all time. If both ‘sides’ get the bludgeon between the eyes, we might find the bludgeon disappears.

      Until everyone on the left is playing by the same rules as those on right, what we have is a specially designed political weapon that only smashes in one direction. I would say that is the most vile outcome.

      1. “It might not make it any less vile, but it at least makes everyone suffer equally. Something about bad laws being enforced diligently to change the voters minds on an issue…”

        I fundamentally disagree.

        Because the holocaust impacted Catholics, Communists, people with Down Syndrome, lesbians and gays, Roma, et. al. in addition to Jews–doesn’t make it any better and there is no good reason why someone should need to be personally affected by injustice in order to oppose it. In fact, I’m not sure being subjected to injustice generally makes people more likely to oppose subjecting others to injustice. Rather, they tend to think–well I’m getting raped, so why shouldn’t everyone else get raped, too? The more people are subjected to injustice, the less sensitive they may become to seeing others treated likewise.

        I reject the hypothesis that subjecting more people to injustice makes the world more just.

        1. Would you at least agree that the extent of the injustice they are subjected to might make a difference?

          I mean, if I were suggesting we ‘cleanse’ a 4th of our population for ‘the greater good’ that might be different than ‘subject people to frivolous administrative hearings equally until they get sick of it’.

          Morally speaking, I’m not so sure that removing people from a job for frivolous reasons stacks up to bodies in the streets in any way. That seems like an appeal to emotion argument more than any reasoned position.

        2. I think you’re missing his point with this comparison. If others besides Jews weren’t impacted, would future holocausts be more acceptable? I doubt it.

          His point, and Ra’s, is that if this treatment doesn’t get turned against the left at times, then there is no reason for them to ever stop using it against the right. Which will just lead to more injustice in the future. And remember, Biden was right there with the rest of them during the Kavanaugh confirmation, so he’s not innocent in all of this.

          Let me ask a different way: if bad regulations or laws only effect some people, is it more or less just to have it effect everyone else, with the intention that once everyone is effected, it’s more likely to get overturned, which will then mean nobody is effected by it in the future?

          1. I’m fairly certain it was my point that if it doesn’t get turned against them it will never change. It’s also my point that it should be turned against them as fully as it’s turned against everyone else.

            You’ll note that just about everyone wrung thorough this wringer comes out against the practice just about immediately.

            You’ll also note those on the left who have not been put through that wringer are supportive of the process until they go through it.

            Seems like the most effective way to get allies on the left for change to the system.

            If what you guys say is true, the Prohibition never would have ended. It’s absurd. The bad law being revealed as a bad law to everyone through enforcement eventually got the point across. If we had just let the government pick and choose the ‘bad people’ to punish with subjective laws, it’s far more likely we’d still be drinking wood alcohol.

            1. I think you misunderstood my post. I’m agreeing with you.

              “His point, and Ra’s, is that if this treatment doesn’t get turned against the left at times, then there is no reason for them to ever stop using it against the right.”

              1. His point seems to be that we should just dissolve the hearings with bipartisan support that doesn’t exist, which is super magical thinking on his part.

                Ken can’t be bothered to think about the nuts and bolts of how things actually change. He’s too busy looking at the view from his Ivory Tower of libertarianism that assumes perfect solutions are possible.

          2. “If others besides Jews weren’t impacted, would future holocausts be more acceptable? I doubt it.”

            One of the reasons that the Nazis came to power and the holocaust was perpetrated was because the German people came to believe that they were victims of injustice.

            Some of it had to do with things like the dolchstoss myth. Some of it had to do with the way their borders were redrawn by their former enemies. Some of it had to do with reparations. Some of it had to do with the way those reparations were extracted.

            When Germany’s currency was under pressure from hyperinflation (also due in no small part to reparations), the cash payment part of the reparations became of little value, so the French (and the Belgians) decided to invade Germany’s Ruhr valley and forcibly extract payments in the form of coal. There was civil disobedience at first, but after 130 German protesters were killed by the invaders, the Beer Hall Putsch, etc., the French were successful in forcing German miners to extract some coal for them at gunpoint with hyper inflation wages.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr#Passive_resistance

            Regardless of whether you think the German people should have been forced to pay reparations, the treatment of the German people in the aftermath of World War I in no way justified the holocaust–just like being abused as a child doesn’t justify the actions of a serial killer. That being said, the way the German people were treated in the aftermath of World War I did not make them more sensitive to injustices suffered by others. Quite the opposite.

            One of the reasons the victims of crime aren’t given the ability to choose the punishment of the criminals who abused their rights is because being the victim of injustice can typically make people blind to the principles of justice.

            1. Just curious Ken, do you normally draw a comparison between administrative hearings that can get you fired to being shot with guns? You didn’t seem to answer this question, and I’m thinking it’s because you aren’t comfortable with honestly discussion this point of view.

              I’m honestly curious if those two things are morally equal to you, because that would be super fucked up.

              I’d like to think my Prohibition comparison is far more apt, and perhaps that’s why you refuse to consider it.

              And for the record, how ‘for’ genocide do you think the Germans would have been if they were not exempt from it?

              I think you’re wrong here, and you’re making emotional arguments because you know it. You certainly can’t stand on a moral comparison between genocide and losing a job.

              1. Oh, and for the record it would appear that the only thing that ended up stopping the genocide was foreign intervention. If Germany never invaded anyone, I wonder if it ever would have.

                That’s a totalitarian state for you, though. We aren’t one of those. Yet. So your little parable here is just garbage.

                Usually I agree with you, but not here.

                1. Oh, and for the record it would appear that the only thing that ended up stopping the genocide was foreign intervention. If Germany never invaded anyone, I wonder if it ever would have.

                  See China, Peoples Republic of.

              2. Not sure I even understand what you’re talking about.

                I compared being subjected to injustice with being subjected to injustice, and if you think being subjected to injustice in one form provokes a fundamentally different response than it does when people are subjected to injustice in other forms, then the burden of proof is on you.

                “If others besides Jews weren’t impacted, would future holocausts be more acceptable? I doubt it.”

                That’s the question I didn’t answer?

                I see no good reason to think that when Germans felt like they were being subjected to injustice that it made lashing out against others or the holocaust less acceptable to them. Rather, it appears to have made fascism and its advocates more acceptable.

                “In German politics, the French occupation of the Rhineland accelerated the formation of right-wing parties. Disoriented by the defeat in the war, conservatives in 1922 founded a consortium of nationalist associations, the “Vereinigten Vaterländischen Verbände Deutschlands” (VVVD, United Patriotic Associations of Germany). The goal was to forge a united front of the right. In the climate of national resistance against the French Ruhr invasion, the VVVD reached its peak strength. It advocated policies of uncompromising monarchism, corporatism and opposition to the Versailles settlement. However, it lacked internal unity and money and so it never managed to unite the right before it had faded away by the late 1920s, as the NSDAP (Nazi party) emerged.[28]”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr#German_politics


                1. Not sure I even understand what you’re talking about.

                  I compared being subjected to injustice with being subjected to injustice…

                  That you don’t understand would appear to be the problem. Not all moral imperatives are equal, and I can’t think of any reasonable person that thinks otherwise.

                  By continuing to use a garbage example you’re proving more and more than you’re just not thinking rationally about the subject. You’re feeling your way through it like a Progressive.

                  Normally going full Godwin right out of the gate is a sign of a shitty argument or a joke. You don’t appear to be joking, and that’s just proof you’re human and not a calculator I suppose.


                  if you think being subjected to injustice in one form provokes a fundamentally different response than it does when people are subjected to injustice in other forms, then the burden of proof is on you.

                  I already proved it. It’s injustice when I get out of a moving violation by paying a fine and someone else might be put in county for it. That’s not at all the same thing as being subjected to genocide, and you’d be literally retarded to think the reaction to both would be the same.


                  1. …there is no good reason why someone should need to be personally affected by injustice in order to oppose it.

                    Ah, maybe this is the crux. You just don’t know any humans, who frequently have bad or entirely irrational reasons for why they do things. Those bad or irrational reasons for doing things usually evaporate upon contact with personal exposure to the end results.

                    We already know for a fact that being personally affected by things is incredibly effective with human’s in changing behavior. It’s literally how you teach your children.

                    Notice all those people who no longer live in Louisiana and specifically New Orleans? People were affected by a hurricane, and then they moved, even while it was a certainty a hurricane of that magnitude would eventually come you have to wonder why they didn’t move before the Hurricane hit.

                    Obviously there are other factors at play there, but if past experience didn’t inform present behavior we’d be literal animals. I agree we shouldn’t need that to change behavior, and we don’t always need it, but as a tool experience is perhaps the best teacher known to mankind.

                  2. “By continuing to use a garbage example you’re proving more and more than you’re just not thinking rationally about the subject. You’re feeling your way through it like a Progressive.”

                    And yet you can’t show me where or why I’m wrong?

                    We’ve got a whole world history of people being subjected to injustices. Show me some examples of people becoming more sensitive to the injustices suffered by others because they were subjected to injustice and draw some general conclusions from them. I dare you.

                    You may find some exceptions that prove the general rule. It’s certainly possible for people to choose not to respond to injustice with injustice, which is exactly what I’m advocating actually. But the trend is that as people are subjected to more injustice, it makes them less sensitive to the injustices suffered by other people–and the idea that the world would become more just if only everyone were subjected to the same injustices equally is absurd.

                    Less injustice means less reaction. Oppression doesn’t necessarily breed freedom. It just breeds revolt. What are we gonna be–anti-neocons now, who run around advocating oppression so that people everywhere will want justice and freedom? Is oppressing people at the point of a gun likely to provoke a better response than liberating people at the point of a gun?


                    1. Show me some examples of people becoming more sensitive to the injustices suffered by others because they were subjected to injustice and draw some general conclusions from them. I dare you.

                      When it’s the same injustice, it literally doesn’t matter that it happens to someone else or how sensitive you might be to it. You’re against the same injustice because it happened to you specifically, and all that matters is they are against it now. It might as well be a coincidence that it happens to others. It’s called self interest, and last I checked there are entire schools of thought built on this that I’m sure you’ve been exposed to. Or are you ignorant of economics all of a sudden?

                      This is human nature, and I have no idea why you would think otherwise unless you’re an eternal optimist.

                      Humans are not born angels, they must be taught, and normally I’d think you’d agree.

                      How many people have become Libertarian specifically because of some fucked up thing the State did to them? And how many of them really gave a fuck about it before? Likely zero.

                2. Its a terrible analogy ken.
                  Man up and take the L

            2. I appreciate the little history lesson, but it’s not addressing my point. And the farther down the rabbit hole of what was going on in Germany during the holocaust you go the farther from the point you get.

              1. “I appreciate the little history lesson, but it’s not addressing my point.”

                The question was whether the holocaust targeting fewer groups of people would have made it more acceptable to groups who were not victims of injustice, and I addressed this point by showing that to the extent the holocaust became acceptable enough for its perpetrators to take power, it was probably necessary for the German people themselves to feel like they were the victims of injustice. In other words, injustice begets injustice.

                I doubt the IRA’s terrorist attacks ever made the Ulster Defense Association more sympathetic to the injustices suffered by Catholics, and I don’t see any evidence that the UDA’s reprisals ever made the IRA any more sympathetic to the injustices suffered by protestant supporters of the UDA. Again, being the victim of injustice by others tends to make people care less about the injustices suffered by other people.

                I do not see why making more and more groups of people the victims of injustice would make them more and more sympathetic to injustices suffered by others. Rather, it seems to be the case, historically, that the more people are subjected to injustice, the less concerned they seem to become about the injustices suffered by others.

                Meanwhile, being the victims of injustice ourselves isn’t a necessary requirement to defend the victims of injustice or to denounce injustice when it’s perpetrated against other people. I’m neither a Jew nor a Catholic nor do I have down syndrome nor am I a gypsy nor gay nor lesbian, and yet I oppose injustices perpetrated against them all. I bear no ill will against any of those people and certainly do not hate them for being a part of any of those groups, but there are other groups of people I don’t like–such as duly convicted arsonists, murderers, rapists, and terrorists–and I oppose injustice when it’s perpetrated against them, too. I even oppose injustice when it’s perpetrated against hypocritical people I despise like progressives and Joe Biden. Denouncing injustice when it’s perpetrated against other people simply doesn’t require that I be a victim of injustice myself.

                So, in answer to your question, expanding the scope of the holocaust beyond Jews did not make it any more acceptable, and making people the victims of injustice, historically, seems to make them less likely to be sympathetic to injustices suffered by others rather than more so. This general trend is demonstrated in the Weimar Republic as well as throughout the rest of history, too.


                1. The question was whether the holocaust targeting fewer groups of people would have made it more acceptable to groups who were not victims of injustice…

                  It’s a stupid question and terrible phrasing.

                  The fact that the holocaust targeted only minority populations was the very reason why it was acceptable in the first place. If every single citizen of Germany were in line for the gas chambers, why the fuck would you think they would be ok with it?

                  Garbage in, garbage out.

                  1. Another silly implication of your terrible example: We should let Biden off the hook because it might make the very people inflicting the inquisition on the rest of us feel like victims themselves.

                    Jaysus, does COVID kill brain cells?

                    Note that I have consistently said these little farces are ridiculous and idiotic. I say the same of this Biden allegation. But to let the left sweep it under the rug and say ‘nothing to see here’ after their behavior in the past is a step too far. It’s letting a toddler smash your Waterford crystal pieces whenever they want, because you don’t want them to feel bad about themselves.

                    Well, maybe they should feel bad about smashing valuable things like public trust. Maybe they need their noses rubbed in it, or smacked with a magazine, to teach them that it’s not acceptable behavior.

        3. I fundamentally disagree.

          I’m with Ken on this. In principal, a 25 years old allegation with no evidence to back it up is ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously.

          Brushing off these accusations against Biden makes you look like you really mean it next time these come up against the party of your choice. Piling onto Biden seriously makes you look as stupid and hypocritical as Kamala Harris.


          1. Brushing off these accusations against Biden makes you look like you really mean it next time these come up against the party of your choice.

            Like brushing off the Kavanaugh accusations made them stop?

            Like how brushing off the Roy Moore accusations made them stop?

            Like how brushing off the Trump accusations made them stop?

            Like how brushing off the Franklin accusations made them stop?

            Oh wait…whoops.


            *hope I didn’t SF the link

            1. It’s not about making them stop. they will never stop but it doesn’t mean they will succeed.

              You what helps woke left partisan SJW fuckers succeed? Playing their game.

              Instead of cheering on the ridiculous accusations against Biden, you should be decrying the same old shit, and pointing to the hypocrisy of those who have chosen principals over principals. Don’t be one of them.


              1. You what helps woke left partisan SJW fuckers succeed? Playing their game.

                ‘Playing their game’ implies you have any idea what their ‘game’ is or that they’re all playing the same game. I’m not sure the rank-and-file and the leadership of these organizations and parties are even speaking the same language.

                Why shouldn’t Democrats be subjected to the same campaign damage they inflict on others without regard to circumstance, logic, or reason? Honest question, because that’s what I’m hearing.

                Note I don’t suggest he’s guilty, and I’d even go so far as to say he’s probably not. That doesn’t mean his campaign shouldn’t suffer because of the very idiocy of the Democrat base.

                Let them eat their own, see if I care. We couldn’t stop if we wanted to, it has to die out and I think this is one way to get rid of it. Eventually. Hopefully. Assuming anyone even cares about hypocrisy anymore. And if they don’t, fuck it we’re doomed anyway.

                If anyone asks, I’ll tell them Biden’s problem isn’t his hands it’s what’s between his ears.

    3. “If you ever argued that 25 year old allegations shouldn’t be taken seriously during the Kavanaugh confirmations, then you have no business changing your position now.”

      No, Ken. There’s quite a bit more evidence supporting one allegation. Her post-assault complaint about his conduct , the report concerning same that’s buried in Biden’s papers at the University of Delaware—assuming it hasn’t gotten the Sandy Berger treatment by now—her subsequent demotion after making the complaint. Near-contemporaneous outcry witnesses who say she told them about the assault, among them that call in by her mother to Larry King’s show.

      Versus a woman who can’t remember what party it was, when during that year, what house it allegedly happened in, or much else about the conduct, and didn’t tell anyone about any of this until the assailant was getting nominated for the Supreme Court.

      Totally the same thing.

      1. IF IF IF one is more persuasive than the other, that doesn’t mean they don’t both fall short of the standard requirements for serious consideration.

        1. ^This.

          Some friends of hers have said that they remember her telling them about it way back when.

          While that’s better info than the Kavanaugh accusers were able to muster up, it’s hardly enough evidence to act on. It should not be taken seriously.

        2. Tara Reade alleged that she actually filed a formal complaint at the time. The threshold issue then is if there is a preponderance of evidence that she filed the complaint, before moving to the merits. There is some evidence that she filed the complaint, but it does not seem it rises to a preponderance.

      2. They’re not exactly the same, but neither of them are terribly convincing. Who cares if one bad example has more bad evidence than the other bad example? Partisans, for the most part. I can’t be sure anyone else actually cares.

        Know what convinced me about the Monica Lewinsky story’s accuracy? Physical evidence.

        Say what you will about Ms. Lewinsky, but she was smarter than the average bear.

        1. She also didn’t wait 25 years to come forward, which is important as well.

          1. I was going to mention that but couldn’t remember how long it took her it report it nor could I bring myself to care enough to look it up.

            I can definitely say it wasn’t 25 years since, hell, I’m not even sure she was 25 when it happened. I also can’t be bothered to look that up.

            1. The affair started in November 1995. She told Linda Tripp about it in 1996. She lied in her affidavit in the Paula Jones trial in January 1998. She testified to the grand jury August 1998. The impeachment happened in December of 1998.

              So she started talking about it in less than a year in Tripp’s confidence, and on the record within 3 years.

              Source

          2. There is evidence that Tara Reade came forward at the time. At this point I’m not sure how convincing it is, but it does exist. It would be great if Biden’s sealed records in Delaware were released.

    4. Ken, this is a good post and I agree. If the Kavanaugh fiasco was BS, and it was, then the Biden/Reade thing should be treated similarly.

      I believe both sides are driven by confirmation bias. They want the other guy to be guilty and their guy to be innocent, so that’s the way they interpret the facts in this case. It is natural human behavior that only reason (small “r”) and logic should be able to dispel. Unfortunately the vast majority of people with the loudest voices in politics and the media aren’t capable of putting logic and reason above their own partisan interests.

      1. I believe this is driven by the Democrats’ ridiculous hypocrisy and the fundamental injustice of it all.

        Subjecting Kavanaugh to serious consideration for allegations that were 30 years old was wrong.

        The Democrats and the press that cheered them on, they should all be ashamed of themselves.

        1. Yes but they wanted Kavanaugh to fail and now they want Biden to succeed. The motivation to view very similar allegations differently is a function of the lens through which they look at their preferred outcome. I believe that’s fundamentally the definition of confirmation bias.

          1. Biden and Kavanaugh are not similarly situated. Then-Judge Kavanaugh was not in a binary election contest against someone who had been accused of far more serious misconduct.

            1. So you consider grabbing the pussy of a woman who _lets_ you do it much worse than pinning a woman against a wall and fingering her pussy?

    5. I partially agree with the lateness with the Reade allegations however she did come forward at the time and nothing was done then, which is different than the Kavanaugh accusers. that said there is direct physical evidence, photos, of Joe fondoling all sorts of women and kids when that other creepy clown senator had to resign for faking fondoling a sleeping woman Joe should also be chastiesed into quitting.

    6. Lots of buildup to jab Robby for his bothsides-ism any time he has to criticize the left.
      The Kavanaugh thing was blatant bs. The accusation was not particularly interesting (boys acted inappropriately with a young girl but didn’t even touch her sexually) even if it could be proven true, but anything resembling evidence turned in Kavanaugh’s favor. Somehow the media and Reason kept up the narrative that the accusations were credible and damning despite no pattern of behavior to support it.
      Reade’s accusation seems to be backed up loosely by the facts. I don’t know how true her full complaint is and I honestly think Biden doesn’t even know as he drifts into senility. The accusation seems in line with Biden’s public behavior even if digital penetration of an unwilling woman is a stretch. What made me think her account is credible was that the words she claimed he said when she rebuffed him were completely in line with his speech pattern and fit his publicly expressed thought pattern. All that said, the accusation doesn’t change how I see Biden and old unprovable accusations shouldn’t be used as a disqualifying tool. TBH, he’s probably guilty but I’d just add this as an anecdote to him being creepy rather than a new claim that he is a sexual predator

  27. From the land of financial privacy, chocolate and cuckoo clocks:

    The Swiss are known for complaining about their neighbours, often using rules designed to keep the noise down. These are rigorously enforced in Geneva, where 16th Century protestant reformer John Calvin banned instrumental music when he was in charge.

    Today, Geneva’s Public Health and Tranquility Law regulates the hours for practising a musical instrument and home DIY, with fines of up to 10,000 Swiss francs ($10,000). Running a bath after 9 p.m. is banned.

    1. Yeah, but do they have ‘free’ medical care?

  28. https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/letters/going-back-to-work-no-matter-what/article_ea43dd12-a53a-5639-945a-f56ffb08308c.html

    “We’re going back to work. We hope to see you in the gallery soonest, hopefully to enjoy the art. If not, know that we’re prepared to defend our right to live, work, and interact freely, and that we will indeed defend our right to do so, if and as necessary.”

  29. “A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Kansas can’t require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote.”

    In related news, California passed a law that requires buyers of ammunition to provide proof of citizenship when they buy ammunition.

    The difference between the two is that citizenship is a legitimate Constitutional requirement for voting but the constitutional requirement for buying ammunition is no different than the constitutional requirement for exercising your freedom of speech.

    Regardless of whether we think this is the way things should be, the way things are is that the American people’s tolerance for illegal immigration probably evaporated along with the emergence of COVID-19. If someone were to introduce a carefully crafted bill to require proof of citizenship in order to vote under the guise of preventing foreign interference in our elections, my guess is that they probably wouldn’t lose their seats in Congress this election cycle or next.

    Were there any objections about requiring people to prove they had insurance to the IRS under the guise of equal protection or did equal protection somehow not matter in regards to ObamaCare’s individual mandate? Surely that argument must have cropped up somewhere.

    1. Look, it boils down to this: Democrats don’t have the votes, and never have had the votes, to pass an amendment on the issue.

      As such, we should all just bend over and let them write laws that are specifically not allowed under the Constitution without going through any of the well documented processes to change the law in that way.

      We should constantly remind these people that the literal only reason why Democrats haven’t passed an amendment as required under our system of government to do this is because the people don’t want it done. What they are saying is fuck you, fuck your opinions, fuck the law, we’re doing what we want and it’s for your own good.

      And, just as a final note because I love the quote so much:


      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

      ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

      Honest question, does anyone at all agree with C.S. Lewis on this point anymore? I know lots of the people around these parts might, but more generally I’m not so sure.

      1. No wonder they hate C.S. Lewis so.

      2. It’s hard to say how many people agree with it. There is definitely a very vocal minority that disagrees with it though, many of who may or may not be funded by people like George Soros. And they have an inflated influence on society at this time.

      3. That’s a great quote. Thanks for sharing. I’ve not read much CS Lewis. Time to start.

      4. I happen to like this quote:

        It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

        — Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse Dune

        1. Was never a big Dune fan outside of the one Lynch film, but I agree with him since ‘power’ can do nothing without direction therefore it can not corrupt on it’s own.

          1. If we ever replace “In God We Trust” on the currency, it should be with “Fear is the Mind-Killer”.

            1. I will literally never get tired of watching Captain Picard teach Agent Cooper how to knife fight.

              That’s already better than Star Trek: Picard by a few light years.

      5. it’s a good quote. With regards to Democrats though I’m not sure it fully applies since a good chunk view us and anyone else who doesn’t goosestep to all progressive values as racist/bigoted/etc and thus evil. It’s the only justification they can think of for why we wouldn’t vote for them.

        Let me reiterate, a portion of the democrat base views any opposition as being less than human. Once you agree with the logic that the only reason someone would disagree with you is that they’re actively evil, then you no longer believe they are your equal, you view them as an inferior. This is how you get atrocities similar to those in WW2 and the crusades

        1. On this we do agree, for sure.

          I try really hard to understand their point of view so that I don’t create some strawman in my head of what they are, but the more I understand the more I start to hear ‘we want to cleanse your type’, and I’m not so sure I like that tone.

          I’m of the opinion some divides just can’t be crossed. I mean, when you’ve given up reason and logic there isn’t much of substance left to agree or disagree with them about. It’s just non-sequitur all the way down, and it makes my head hurt.

          The sad thing is, I’m pretty sure I can prove their case correct better than they can at this point. I just have no interest in doing so.

  30. The court agreed that Kansas had a legitimate interest in protecting election integrity but found that the 67 instances of voter fraud since 1999 did not justify the burden placed on Kansans.

    Ok, will they use this logic in other places? If there were less than 67 instances of, say, food poisoning in Kansas since 1999, does that mean restaurant licenses are an undue burden?

    1. actually, this is starting to make sense. I can see a lot of good outcomes from this line of reasoning.

      1. This reasoning should be used for all regulations/licensing enacted in the first place. But that horse has left the barn.

    2. Will SCOTUS overturn this?

  31. It’s impossible at this moment based on the evidence that I’ve seen to believe Reade. It’s got nothing to do with politics. It’s because she changed her story and she seems especially shady almost crazy because she was praising Joe Biden not so long ago. It could have happened the way she is now describing it but I just can’t get past the inconsistency. If that complaint she alleges she filed back then turns up and it doesn’t include the sexual assault allegation then it’s completely over.

    1. I’m sorry, but if we’ve learned anything over the last 4 years: we need a full investigation before any decision.

    2. Do you ever consider citing any evidence you reference, or do you just like tossing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

    3. It’s got nothing to do with politics.

      Pressing “X” to doubt here.

  32. “It was the ’90s,” she told Halper, suggesting that no one would have cared or believed Reade back then.

    Ah yes, the ’90s, I remember it well. Back when men were free to roam the streets having their way with whoever or whatever struck their fancy without consequence. /sarc

    Seriously? Granted I was in Jr. HS up through college (in other words, didn’t know shit about shit) but I don’t recall things being that bad. But then again maybe it was and I just don’t remember it because I was a stupid kid, but these people make it sound like it was the dark ages or something.

    1. Well, I mean a President did get off scott free from multiple rape and misconduct allegations in the 90’s with full throat ed support from feminist groups so I suppose from a certain point of view it was the dark ages.

      Of course, that happens pretty much any time you ever measure the past by the morals and norms of today.

      The people of tomorrow will remember us as savages. That’s a guarantee.

      1. And that same now ex-president is still lauded and fawned over by those same feminists and the media to this day. None of them have ever said “You know what? We were wrong to excuse ol’ Slick Willy’s raping and sexual harassment back in the day. We’re sorry about that.” Which makes it pretty hard to give them any credibility now or ever.

        1. I’ve said it for years, and it’s true of feminist groups as much as any other special interest: once a groups cause is complete, the framework they built will refuse to die and will ultimately find a way to undue the work of those who came before.

          Once feminist groups won equal rights, it was inevitable they’d eventually come out against women’s rights.

    2. People always want to act like women’s rights were invented 5 years ago, but it’s been basically the same shit more or less for the past 30 years or so.

    3. “Ah yes, the ’90s, I remember it well. Back when men were free to roam the streets having their way with whoever or whatever struck their fancy without consequence. ”

      The blackface trend helped them keep their anonymity

    4. So besides what BYODB mentioned below, remember that Cosby had allegations in the 90s too. In addition, I know at least both SC & NY had laws on the books saying that wives were legally incapable of being raped by their husbands since marriage = consent or some shit. If I remember correctly this was brought up during Ivana Trump’s allegations (since walked back) in ’89. Was it full on cavemen dragging women by their hair off to their dens? No. Could powerful men still get away with stuff fairly easily? Yes. Was Reid’s accusations against one of those powerful men? Yes.

  33. …how Justin Amash’s campaign changes the 2020 presidential election.

    It means that whichever cockstain wins will win with a slighter lower percentage of the popular vote than they would have otherwise. That’s all.

  34. Her story falls apart like wet paper. That’s it.

    1. Funny, same thing happened with Christine Wine-Mom.

  35. I’m guessing this whole Joe Biden thing will be instrumental in shutting the #MeToo movement up… at least for the time being. Sort of like Obama shut the anti-war movement up. Although I don’t have any issue in principle with the anti-war movement– I’m merely talking about the way social movements work.

    The #MeToo movement backed themselves into a corner with the stupid “Believe All Women” trope, something that Joe Biden himself espoused. This hypocrisy with Biden, and how the media and the #MeToo movement is treating him is nuclear– everyone is aware of its presence but deathly afraid to touch it.

  36. “Believing women was never about ‘Believe all women no matter what they say,’ it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default,” Milano claims.

    This was never really a problem.

    1. I don’t believe anyone by default. I guess that makes me every kind of -ist there is.

      1. I think that makes you humanist.

  37. “I wasn’t one of her better advocates,” he told Halper. “I said let it go, move on, guys are idiots.”

    this is actually solid advice. A guy groped you and you pushed him off. It’s not the end of the world.

  38. “I don’t have any insight on why women’s groups have been largely silent on the accusations,” writes Erin Gloria Ryan at the Beast today, “but if I had to guess, it’s because what Biden is alleged to have done pales in comparison with things Trump has been accused of, and that Reade is, at press time, the only person to make serious assault allegations against Biden. everyone is a partisan hypocrite

    FTFY

  39. Biden has one sexual assault accusation?!? All I can say is that compared to Dear Leader that puts him in the category of Rank Amateur. I mean, how many women have accused him of playing with their peepee to their disgust. 25? Pfft, Biden better up his game. He needs to rape a minor at an Epstein party like Trump to be in his league.

  40. This bitch is probably lying or a douchy SJW. That’s my default reaction when any women dares accuse a man of assault. She probably wanted it.

    1. Just because a woman won’t let you get within 50 yards of her unless you’re paying for the privilege is no reason to be bitter towards the rest.

    2. I’m fine if she claims he turned her into a newt, but she should either resemble a newt or have evidence of the procedures that converted her back from being a newt.

  41. The GDP dropped 4.8%. Stories of hypocrisy time!

    Such a drop is staggering. We average – very rough average – in the West, what, 1.6%-2.5% growth?

    I just realized something. The doctor friend I mentioned who is big on the shut down – or doesn’t think it’s a big deal – told me he moved his money to cash and relishing buying up stock.

    So he’s looking to score off the backs of people hurled into misery because of people like him who think the shut down is justified.

    Folks. People are broken inside.

    1. Is that the one who went full Jim Taggart on you the other day?

      1. Yes.

    2. Your doctor friend sounds like a real piece of shit.

    3. Maybe he’ll catch the bug and get his justice.

  42. It’s important to note that while there is plenty of hypocrisy, there are many people who are believing Reade and calling Biden out, and hence, being consistent.

    It would probably be an easy article for the hypocrisy cops to write if they were to survey how conservatives react to Trump/Kavanaugh/Biden. Are they going to use Reade’s accusation to tarnish Biden? If so, hypocrisy! But, no, probably not. They will gleefully ignore it and instead focus on liberal reactions. It’s all so amusing to see people struggle to react to accusations of sexual assault. Just a big game, right?

  43. I don’t think the Democrats are going to dump Biden. I don’t think they can. The problem with dumping Biden is how would they then explain not giving the nomination to Sanders. Sanders finished second. It is one thing to deny him the nomination because another candidate got more votes and delegates. It is something different altogether to deny him the nomination when the guy who beat him is forced off the ticket. There isn’t any possible justification for doing that other than “Sanders or someone like him will never be the nominee no mater the circumstances”. And making that clear would cause his supporters to walk. The only hope the Democrats have of keeping the Sanders’ supporters from walking is somehow convincing them Biden won the nomination fair and square and they need to do what is right for the party. Kick Biden to the curb and there is no way to do that. They either nominate Sanders or watch the party split in half as his supporters walk. So, it is Biden or no one at this point.

    1. They will never explain anything. They will just do it.
      They never explained rigging the last nomination, did they?
      Why should they explain?
      The press will cover for them with a power Goebbels could only dream of.

      1. They can do whatever they want. But doing that would be a bigger disaster for the party than running Biden. Bernie’s supporters are 30% or more of the party base. They are also the most active and motivated 30%. Having even half of them walk away from the party and either not show up or show up and vote third party would not only hand Trump a landslide, it would have enormous consequences for every Democrat running in November.

        They understand that. So, I doubt they will do that.

        1. True, but they could also be counting on Bernie supporters being young and easily manipulated by social pressure. Never Bernie folks make up most mainstream outlets. If they blatantly pull the nom away from him like that. It will give them months worth of time to browbeat their Bernie voters to fall into line.

          1. If it had been up to the Dem establishment, Bernie would have not even run this cycle and finished last if he did. They have been trying to brow beat Bernie supporters into shutting up and falling in line for going on six years now. And it still hasn’t worked. Bernie not only did run, he finished a very strong second this year beating out sitting governors and senators along the way. So, I don’t think they are brow beating Bernie supporters into much of anything.

            1. Nominate Biden at the Convention. Appoint his VP. Biden then falls, or has some other medical episode—if they’re really lucky, some autistic bigot out of Central Casting, wearing a MAGA hat, will take a shot or a swing at him. After bravely trying to convalesce, (incidentally missing the first post-Convention debate) Torpedo Joe drops out for the good of the country, and asks Bernie to be the new VP.

              Ticket is something like Abrams, Val Demings, or Duckworth/Sanders. I think Bernie would go for it. How much work does the VP do anyway?

    2. The thing I’m hearing people call for now, is to let Biden win the nomination with all the delegates voting. Then once it is official, have him step down so the party leaders can give the nom to either his VP or someone else of their choosing. It’s why they can’t dump him right this second, because if they did, the delegates could vote for Bernie.

      1. I don’t think the Bernie Bros would buy that little party trick. Even those morons would see that for what it is. The bottom line is, if Biden stepped down, the Bernie supporters would have a legitimate claim to demand he be replaced with Bernie.

        1. Yea, but Bernie himself would roll over like a bitch

      2. I can’t see how that wouldn’t piss off Bernie’s supporters even further. Maybe they don’t think his supporters are numerous enough to cause that much damage in the general if they peel off or don’t vote, but having him step down immediately to nominate whichever woman he picks as VP, or some other hand-picked DNC stooge, is such a blatant power play that I can’t imagine it not causing a significant rift in the party.

      3. The Democrats doing basically a back-room deal? Nah. That’d never happen.

    3. They were idiots to hitch their wagon to a guy that can’t even stay awake during a nationally televised call with Hillary the Lich Queen.

      Oh, and apparently Stacey Abrams is lobbying hard for the VP slot, and essentially telling the campaign that if they don’t put her there, the black community is going to stay home. She really shouldn’t be acting so thirsty for the position, because she doesn’t have near the clout or party influence to play political blackmail like that.

      1. Abrams would be the worst choice Biden could make. I think everyone realizes that he is probably not up to making it four years in the job. People still might vote for him if they feel like his VP is up to the job the way they voted for FDR in 1944. Put a nut like Abrams on the ticket, and Biden is doomed because most people would see a vote for Biden having a significant chance of being a vote for Abrams. And Abrams would be lucky to win three states if she were the nominee.

    4. John,

      It’ll e instructive for people who are going to vote for Biden as to how you overlooked all of Dear Leader’s sexual assault allegations— one of which against a child. How do you end up casting a vote for a sleazy sexual predator and likely child rapist. Can you go through the process? Thanks man.

      1. How do you end up casting a vote for a sleazy sexual predator and likely child rapist.

        You should know, you’re the expert.

        1. I voted for Jill Stein. I have a question for you. Are you still having problems making your rent payment?

  44. there’s a line crossed using 25+ year-old allegations as political capital

  45. written in 2008

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/23/quot-change-quot-quot-hope-quot-why-they-must-be-talking-about-joe-biden/

    Vanity is the most conspicuous characteristic of US Senators en bloc , nourished by deferential acolytes and often expressed in loutish sexual advances to staffers, interns and the like. On more than one occasion CounterPunch’s editors have listened to vivid accounts by the recipient of just such advances, this staffer of another senator being accosted by Biden in the well of the senate in the weeks immediately following his first wife’s fatal car accident.

  46. Joe Biden Might Not Be Guilty, But Corporate Media Is
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/30/joe-biden-might-not-be-guilty-but-corporate-media-is/

    The Washington Post interviewed Reade shortly after she made her first, less serious allegation of uncomfortable touching in an essay in April 2019, but didn’t publish the interview. In March 2020, Reade went public with accusations of sexual assault, but still nothing from the Post. The Post did eventually publish — after The New York Times ran a story on the accusations, which was almost three weeks after she went public. The Times editor in chief then admitted the paper quietly edited its story under pressure from the Biden campaign.

    A Washington Free Beacon review of all 10 interviews with the vice president in the three weeks after the accusation found nary a question on the charge. On April 16, 24 days after the allegation, a CBS reporter asked Sanders what he thought, but even then couched the question, asking about Sanders ally Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying “she thinks its legitimate and relevant to talk about sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden.”

    “Do you agree?”

    Biden had yet to face one direct question.

    It was still another day before CNN reported on the story at all, couching their coverage as “Democrats [grappling] with questions” about the accusation.

    On Sunday, not a single morning show mentioned the news. On Monday, The Washington Post’s story was titled, “Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden.” By Tuesday, five weeks into the story, a Media Research Center analysis found 24-hour news network CNN had spent shy of 15 minutes on the story, PBS had spent seven minutes, MSNBC had spent less than five minutes, CBS had spent one minute, and NBC and ABC, zero seconds.

    Five weeks and 19 interviews later, Biden has not been asked.

    1. Weird, since “Don’t ask, don’t tell” ended in the Obama administration.

    2. The fact that they haven’t thrown him a softball question and allowed him to give an indigent self righteous denial makes me wonder just how bad Biden’s mental state is. They are not going to make this story go away by ignoring it. They have to know that.

      So, the thing to do is deal with it now. Let Biden deny it and give the whole “have you no shame” act. Then afterwards treat the story as “old news”. Why have they not done it? It seems to me that the most likely reason is that Biden can’t be trusted to handle even a softball interview well.

      1. I don’t think they can even do that. As I posted above, they backed themselves into a corner. If they throw him a softball question, if he handles it well– and the press walks away… “satisfied”, then they’re not believing all women. If he doesn’t handle it well, then they just contributed to the weakening of the campaign. Their only option is to pretend it doesn’t exist, that way there’s no women to not believe, and no candidate with a scandal to dig into.

        1. Ignoring it is not believing all women. The act of ignoring it is the act of saying she is lying. Otherwise they are ignoring sexual assault. The only way you could ignore it is if you could keep the allegation totally out of the public eye such that it could be dismissed as just another “right wing conspiracy theory”. They can’t do that. The major media doesn’t control the narrative like that anymore and the fact that Democrats are making an issue out of this would keep them from dismissing this even if they did still control the narrative.

          What they will end up doing one way or another is giving some mealy mouthed “we don’t know what happened here and while it is disturbing it is just too hard to say what happened” kind of narrative. They won’t not believe her. They just won’t know. It will be similar to Reason’s response to the Rotherham scandal. There, Reason ran a 12 am Saturday morning news dump piece saying “well we just don’t know what happened here and there just are not any big lessons to learn and certainly nothing about immigration and open borders” article that allowed them to say they hadn’t ignored it but also didn’t say anything and still dodged the issue. That is what the media has to do with this story.

          Doing that would be a lot easier if Biden were asked about it and denied it. I think they haven’t done that because they fear Biden can’t give a credible denial.

          1. Ignoring it is not believing all women.

            You know that, and I know that, but it gives them plausible deniability. Who’s “interviewing CNN” over this? What media organization is demanding answers from the Washington Post?

            The only way you could ignore it is if you could keep the allegation totally out of the public eye such that it could be dismissed as just another “right wing conspiracy theory”.

            They’re working on that. I’m sure you’ve seen the… non-authoritative sources who’ve carefully pointed out the Larry King episode that’s missing? The one where Reade’s mother called in?

            As for the rest of your comment, we’ll have to see. I’m not a loyal Steven Crowder fan, but I saw a recent video of his that I thought hit the nail on the head. We should treat these allegations with the same standards we treated the Kavanaugh allegations: With a healthy dose of skepticism. What should be pointed out, loudly, is the media’s hypocrisy on this whole situation.

        2. This. MeToo has painted denying that you raped a woman as oppressing her, because being accused makes you guilty and denying you did it just trying to cover up your guilt. The only valid answer allowed was admitting you did whatever she says you did and suffer whatever punishment she deemed necessary. They can’t have him answer with that standard in place.

          1. You are right but ignoring the story doesn’t change that.

      2. The only thing that amazes me is just how fast “Believe all women” got chucked into the incinerator.

        1. It just got changed to #BelieveAllWomen(who accuse a Republican), Democrats being so flexible and all.

  47. In the hunt for Orange November # metoo torpedos shot and sank;
    SS Charley Rose
    SS Tavis Smiley
    SS Matt Lauer
    SS Kevin Spacey
    SS Mark Halperin
    SS Harvey Weinstein
    SS Al Franken
    SS Leslie Moonves
    SS Jeffrey Epstein
    SS Bill O’Reilly
    SS Roger Ailes*
    and the Great White Whale Mario Batali

    * only one to get a TV movie.

  48. Why Won’t TV News Book Tara Reade?
    The stakes are high for the media in the case of a sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/media/tara-reade-joe-biden-media.html?referringSource=articleShare

  49. Let’s reverse the roles. Let say a woman was in biden’s spot as the “apparent” dem Presidential candidate. Would this potential woman Presidential candidate take biden with at least 4 sexual allegations as a VP choice? Now let’s add his dead brain walking issues into the selection process with these 4 sexual allegations. biden is dem placeholder, dems are going to replace this
    ” ‘dem’ ented circus monkey”

  50. There’s a big difference between Kavanaugh and Biden: Biden was a molester in the Senate, he wasn’t in high school like Kavanaugh.

    This would be the same as Kavanaugh if Kavanaugh was molesting people while a judge, only a few years before his nomination.

    1. And now they are just shrugging and saying, “Weeellll, yeah maybe he did maybe he didn’t, but TRUMP HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF WORSE”.

      So essentially it’s the old don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good shtick. The democrats have no morals or principles that are difficult for them to ignore when convenient. Frankly I say let ol Biden run, and Tara Meade can sit directly in front of him at the debates. Oh he probably is so far gone he won’t know, but it will cause the left to shit a brick and that’s worth it.

  51. Reading the comments in the rare (and usually way below the virtual fold) articles about Reade’s accusations in the Washington Post, Most Democrats don’t care if Biden did it or not. They’ll vote for him even if it is proved he did. Generally, because Orange Man Bad.

    1. Repeating the mantra, “Orange Man Bad”, doesn’t magically take away that Orange Man really is bad.

      Orange Man has his own #metoo charges against him.

      As Amash said, they are both unfit for the office, and the #metoo charges are just one part of that.

Comments are closed.