Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Calling all feminists...what next?

House Cat said:
I believe articles such as these is the DNC’s attempt at damage control. Let’s not do the right thing. Let’s just put lipstick on a pig.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

"Contrary to the way politics and world affairs are typically covered and discussed in America, moral and ethical dilemmas tend to be nuanced and complex. There are rarely perfect answers. In the end, we all have to weigh all sorts of competing factors and search our own consciences to determine which candidate represents the best future for the country."
 
missy said:
I agree with this.

"Contrary to the way politics and world affairs are typically covered and discussed in America, moral and ethical dilemmas tend to be nuanced and complex. There are rarely perfect answers. In the end, we all have to weigh all sorts of competing factors and search our own consciences to determine which candidate represents the best future for the country."
Click to expand...

There are sooo many op Ed articles circulating since Friday. I could paste quite a few, but in the end, they are just that—opinions. What I do find refreshing in all of them is that they do acknowledge that the DNC does NOT have to nominate Biden and that he can step down. I even read a few on who our fantasy replacements would be, lol. They also keep repeating the whole notion of hypocrisy and how more and more women actually want more accountability from our party. But now that this has happened, we will indeed stay tuned!
www.cnn.com

READ: Joe Biden sends letter requesting secretary of Senate release any Tara Reade documents | CNN Politics

Former Vice President Joe Biden on Friday sent a letter to the secretary of the Senate requesting the release of any documents related to a sexual assault allegation made by onetime staffer Tara Reade.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
nala said:
There are sooo many op Ed articles circulating since Friday. I could paste quite a few, but in the end, they are just that—opinions. What I do find refreshing in all of them is that they do acknowledge that the DNC does NOT have to nominate Biden and that he can step down. I even read a few on who our fantasy replacements would be, lol. They also keep repeating the whole notion of hypocrisy and how more and more women actually want more accountability from our party.
Click to expand...

Yup. The DNC can nominate someone else. Time will tell.
 
missy said:
Yup. The DNC can nominate someone else. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Here is the fantasy that I was referring to.
www.marketwatch.com

Clinton-Obama in 2020? One former White House official says it’s possible

Douglas MacKinnon waxed creative in an op-ed in The Hill about a potential replacement ticket for the 2020 election.
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com

and what my concern has been all along
news.yahoo.com

Law professor says response to Biden allegation could signal 'end of MeToo' movement

Activists who have fought to change society's response to women coming forward with allegations of sexual assault have said former Senate aide Tara Reade's accusation against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden presents a challenge, The Washington...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com

An excerpt:
Activists who have fought to change society's response to women coming forward with allegations of sexual assault have said former Senate aide Tara Reade's accusation against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden presents a challenge, The Washington Post reports.

Many activists, the Post reports, want to ensure President Trump, who is the subject of multiple allegations of sexual assault and harassment himself, is defeated in November, but there is also concern that a lack of scrupulous investigation into Reade's claims against Biden — who has deniedthem — could be damaging to the movement overall. "I think that this could potentially be the end of MeToo," said Michele Dauber, a Stanford University law professor who heads the Enough is Enough Voter Project. "The failure to investigate, and the failure to live by our principles, will become silencing."
 
Last edited:
missy said:
Yup. The DNC can nominate someone else. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
Here comes Hillary.. :clap: IMO, HRC have a better chance of beating Trump than Biden.
 
@missy , I remember all the discussion before the RNC four years ago. Everyone seemed to believe that the leading Republicans would have loved to put up ANYONE other than Trump. I remember people saying what you are saying — the delegates can do anything. But it was widely perceived as a move that would decimate the Republican Party and leave it in shambles. How would this work differently today for the Democrats?
 
alittlelight said:
@missy , I remember all the discussion before the RNC four years ago. Everyone seemed to believe that the leading Republicans would have loved to put up ANYONE other than Trump. I remember people saying what you are saying — the delegates can do anything. But it was widely perceived as a move that would decimate the Republican Party and leave it in shambles. How would this work differently today for the Democrats?
Click to expand...

The DNC would have to do a lot of arm twisting and back room deals to negotiate a successful replacement. And right now we don't know who that replacement would be. Or if it would happen. First we need someone who is a good candidate and who is also electable.
 
Screen Shot 2020-05-05 at 11.24.03 AM.png
 
missy said:
Well if that happened we would certainly get a new candidate in both parties...
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a two-birds one stone way of draining the swamp.
 
missy said:
Interesting POV regarding hypocrisy and this election.

www.usatoday.com

Biden denies sex assault claim. If you don't believe him, should you vote for him anyway?

If you believe Reade's claims but grasp the unique danger Trump presents, it's best to ignore black-and-white analysis and search your own conscience.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...

I agree with this. And if this is presenting Biden's handling of this accurately, I believe he is handling it reasonably. While he's maintaining his innocence, he's not attacking her and is publically supporting her being heard and there being an investigation. Hopefully he's not doing anything behind the scenes to discourage or block an investigation; I hope good investigative journalists are looking to make sure there isn't evidence of that.

It would be hypocrisy to "sweep this under the rug", to insist she's lying, to try to discredit her story by discrediting her character, lifestyle, etc., to try to block an investigation, to advocate against an investigation, to try to shut her down from telling her story.

I guess I don't understand the absolute assumption that what happened is exactly as she has characterized it and that he is therefore lying any more than I would understand assuming that he is telling the total truth and that she is lying. Either of those could be the case - we don't freaking know. Or the "truth" could be somewhere in between, and they are each honestly interpreting events through their own perception, which makes it seem to be two different stories - which is something that happens all the time in human interactions. We don't know - we weren't there, and no real investigation has taken place yet. One should take place - and a real one, unlike that sham of one with Kavanaugh - but that may not "prove" anything either. What then?

Frankly, we don't know that Kavanaugh committed sexual assault. We weren't there, and the investigation was a sham so not definitive. I had other issues with him, but I can't truthfully sit here and pronounce him guilty of sexual assault. Same for Trump - accusations but no investigations with presented actual evidence. We do have the infamous audio of him boasting about grabbing, but that's not even proof that he actually grabbed. Was it just boasting and talking himself up? Unless we witnessed it, we don't know. And now, we don't know, and might never know, exactly what happened between Biden and Reade. I don't get how comfortable people are assuming that one or the other is lying. Especially since we know that perpetrators sometimes lie, accusers sometimes lie, and just about all of us have experienced remembering and/or interpreting the same set of events differently from others based on perception.

How are people here and elsewhere just so sure and ready to have that form the basis of such an important decision when there's been no evidence presented yet and not even a real investigation?
 
Last edited:
OboeGal said:
How are people here and elsewhere just so sure and ready to have that form the basis of such an important decision when there's been no evidence presented yet and not even a real investigation?
Click to expand...

If by people here you are referring to me, and my definition of hypocrisy, you are misunderstanding the entire purpose of this thread. I reiterate, I did not once say Biden was guilty. I started this thread bc I wanted him to address this issue, even while many on this thread made excuses for him not to—citing their so called expertise or know-it-all attitudes about what was certain to happen if he did address it. If anything, some posters attacked her credibility from the get-go, which is the hypocrisy that I kept referring to. And now that he finally addressed the issue, and she is asking for more, we will all see if she gets her day in court—a real investigation—because last I heard, an Investigation by newspaper does not supplant and FBI investigation.
 
Last edited:
nala said:
If by people here you are referring to me, and my definition of hypocrisy, you are misunderstanding the entire purpose of this thread. I reiterate, I did not once say Biden was guilty. I started this thread bc I wanted him to address this issue, even while many on this thread made excuses for him not to—citing their so called expertise or know-it-all attitudes about what was certain to happen if he did address it. If anything, some posters attacked her credibility from the get-go, which is the hypocrisy that I kept referring to. And now that he finally addressed the issue, and she is asking for more, we will all see if she gets her day in court—a real investigation—because last I heard, an Investigation by newspaper does not supplant and FBI investigation.
Click to expand...

What would a "real" investigation entail according to you? How does she get "her day in court?" I'm not being facetious here, I'm curious. Do you feel we should enact laws to require that all allegations against all political candidates be investigated in a criminal court? Should there be a statute of limitations on those allegations? Does it matter if the candidate is also an incumbent? Does the credibility of the allegations matter? If so, what body would decide credibility before it went to court?
 
Maria D said:
What would a "real" investigation entail according to you? How does she get "her day in court?" I'm not being facetious here, I'm curious. Do you feel we should enact laws to require that all allegations against all political candidates be investigated in a criminal court? Should there be a statute of limitations on those allegations? Does it matter if the candidate is also an incumbent? Does the credibility of the allegations matter? If so, what body would decide credibility before it went to court?
Click to expand...

What did we do for Kavanaugh? Didn’t we set the precedent for that? Didn’t the victim that we so fervently believed and defended get her chance to be heard? Even that would suffice. And we will stay tuned. I was happy that at least he acknowledged the accusation, which he hadn’t done prior to this thread and that is all that I ever advocated for. If I recall correctly, you were one of the posters who justified why he shouldn’t even address these! I’m sure that is why @Calliecake appreciates your musings on this thread. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know it all or to be a political strategist so my answers will not suffice you.
 
Last edited:
@nala, The couple of posts I’ve read in this thread haven’t been people attacking Tara Reade. Kavanaugh didn’t have a thorough investigation.


@OboeGal and @Maria D , Thank you for your posts above. You both always take the time to state your views thoughtfully.
 
Last edited:
Calliecake said:
@nala, The couple of posts I’ve read in this thread haven’t been people attacking Tara Reade. Kavanaugh didn’t have a through investigation.


@OboeGal and @Maria D , Thank you for your posts above. You both always take the time to state your views thoughtfully. I love reading your opinions.
Click to expand...

I said some. Sorry you have a selective memory so go back and read.
 
nala said:
What did we do for Kavanaugh? Didn’t we set the precedent for that? Didn’t the victim that we so fervently believed and defended get her chance to be heard? Even that would suffice. And we will stay tuned. I was happy that at least he acknowledged the accusation, which he hadn’t done prior to this thread and that is all that I ever advocated for. If I recall correctly, you were one of the posters who justified why he shouldn’t even address these! I’m sure that is why @Calliecake appreciates your musings on this thread. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know it all or to be a political strategist so my answers will not suffice you.
Click to expand...

What did we do for Kavanaugh?

There were congressional hearings for Kavanaugh as there are for all Supreme Court nominees.

Didn’t we set the precedent for that?

No, Biden is running for president. He is not an SC nominee.

Didn’t the victim that we so fervently believed and defended get her chance to be heard?

Who fervently believed her? Personally, I believe that highly inappropriate shenanigans went on with drunk teenagers and that she felt endangered, but I have no way of knowing if Kavanaugh's intent was to rape. I do believe Kavanaugh lied in those hearings.

If I recall correctly, you were one of the posters who justified why he shouldn’t even address these!

You recall incorrectly. I said that many of the people who voted for him may not want him to address it because to do so he has to call Reade a liar. Here are (some of) my exact words: "I do not think you are alone in wanting Biden to speak out. I’m not that politically astute so I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of voters who picked Biden (I was not one of them) are not going to be put off by him staying quiet on this. In fact, they may rather he just STFU because it’s a no win situation for him. A vehement denial means he has to call Reade a liar and get the machine going to discredit her."

Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know it all or to be a political strategist so my answers will not suffice you.

As anyone without a bone to pick can see in my words above, I do not claim to be politically astute. Your answers do not suffice because you do not give any. I asked my questions sincerely because I do not understand how this investigation can possibly happen without a formal charge.
 
nala said:
—a real investigation—because last I heard, an Investigation by newspaper does not supplant and FBI investigation.
Click to expand...
Especially by the unbiased NYT...:whistle:
 
Maria D said:
Does the credibility of the allegations matter? If so, what body would decide credibility before it went to court?
Click to expand...
NYT, WP, CNN and MSNBC.
 
I think you both @nala and @Maria D have valid points with regard to Reade. There is no way to know if either of the Reade or Ford incidents happened or are accurately remembered or described. There is no way to criminally investigate either accusation. The hearing for Kavanaugh's appointment was used to "investigate" that accusation, which was also reviewed by the FBI. At such a late date of reporting that was the best that was going to happen. I don't know who could "investigate" the accusations against Biden other than investigative reporters since the LE agency has put her report as inactive due to the statute of limitations. But they both have spoken and now people have to make their decisions on where it goes from here. More information that lends credibility that "something" happened continues to emerge wrt the Reade accusation. Biden should continue to be asked about it when interviewed. The hypocrisy of the two situations and how they are/were treated in the media cannot be ignored by anyone viewing them with a reasonable eye. If you pick apart Reade's story while swallowing Ford's whole then you are not viewing them with that reasonable eye but through a partisan lens.

I think something happened to both these women but none of us have any idea what or who except the parties involved. IMO the timing of BOTH accusations smack of political expediency. People will have to decide when it comes time to vote.

I hope people who raised Cain against Kavanaugh and now decide to vote for Biden because Trump is so terrible at least acknowledge they may be in the same shoes of those who voted for Trump in 2016. Hillary was just that terrible to millions of voters. As someone else in this thread said - Perfect is the enemy of good.
 
Last edited:
Maria D said:
What did we do for Kavanaugh?

There were congressional hearings for Kavanaugh as there are for all Supreme Court nominees.

Didn’t we set the precedent for that?

No, Biden is running for president. He is not an SC nominee.

Didn’t the victim that we so fervently believed and defended get her chance to be heard?

Who fervently believed her? Personally, I believe that highly inappropriate shenanigans went on with drunk teenagers and that she felt endangered, but I have no way of knowing if Kavanaugh's intent was to rape. I do believe Kavanaugh lied in those hearings.

If I recall correctly, you were one of the posters who justified why he shouldn’t even address these!

You recall incorrectly. I said that many of the people who voted for him may not want him to address it because to do so he has to call Reade a liar. Here are (some of) my exact words: "I do not think you are alone in wanting Biden to speak out. I’m not that politically astute so I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of voters who picked Biden (I was not one of them) are not going to be put off by him staying quiet on this. In fact, they may rather he just STFU because it’s a no win situation for him. A vehement denial means he has to call Reade a liar and get the machine going to discredit her."

Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know it all or to be a political strategist so my answers will not suffice you.

As anyone without a bone to pick can see in my words above, I do not claim to be politically astute. Your answers do not suffice because you do not give any. I asked my questions sincerely because I do not understand how this investigation can possibly happen without a formal charge.
Click to expand...

Here’s the thing. I have given you answers repeatedly. I don’t know the answers! I keep telling you that we will see.... we will stay tuned! I’m glad he came forward and that your interpretation of what the vast majority of voters would prefer didn’t include those who did seek that he address it—like me. Some were not ok with him just STFU—Like me. And the jury is still out on his vehement denial... so we shall see, right?
 
Last edited:
nala said:
If by people here you are referring to me, and my definition of hypocrisy, you are misunderstanding the entire purpose of this thread. I reiterate, I did not once say Biden was guilty. I started this thread bc I wanted him to address this issue, even while many on this thread made excuses for him not to—citing their so called expertise or know-it-all attitudes about what was certain to happen if he did address it. If anything, some posters attacked her credibility from the get-go, which is the hypocrisy that I kept referring to. And now that he finally addressed the issue, and she is asking for more, we will all see if she gets her day in court—a real investigation—because last I heard, an Investigation by newspaper does not supplant and FBI investigation.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to you, @nala. I think I understood you correctly that you were advocating that she be treated with the same respect, and that her accusations be accorded the same investigation, that we would expect and demand if the politician involved were from the right. And I completely agree with you.
 
redwood66 said:
I hope people who raised Cain against Kavanaugh and now decide to vote for Biden because Trump is so terrible at least acknowledge they may be in the same shoes of those who voted for Trump in 2016. Hillary was just that terrible to millions of voters. As someone else in this thread said - Perfect is the enemy of good.
Click to expand...

I agreed with much of what you say in the post I excerpted from but just wanted to comment on your last paragraph. For me Kavanaugh/Biden are apples and oranges. SCJ s ia lifetime appointed position on which the only "say" the voters have is electing the president they want to be the chooser. Republicans, at the direction of McConnell, broke those rules. His blatant disregard for the will of the voters when he instructed his majority to not even consider Obama's pick was an action that perpetuated ugly bipartisanship. Merrick Garland was a unifying choice, well-respected by both republicans and democrats. McConnell was flexing his muscle, resulting in the dems flexing back when they saw a chance. While they didn't have a prayer of actually preventing Kavanaugh from being approved, political damage was inflicted on republican senators who approved Kavanaugh.

So - having an issue with Kavanaugh as SCJ cannot be compared directly with choosing between Biden and Trump. Especially if the only aspect one is considering is whether or not they are guilty of sexual assault! Because in that case you then have to want all the same media "investigation" that you're asking for Biden's accuser to be done for Trump's accusers and no one has once suggested that here.

People choosing not to vote for Biden because they believe Tara Reade, or find him creepy, or think his Ukraine dealings were sketchy, or maybe just think he's an old geezer, doesn't even seem to be the issue in this thread. It's about trying to shame women who call themselves feminists into admitting that they are hypocrites.
 
Maria D said:
I agreed with much of what you say in the post I excerpted from but just wanted to comment on your last paragraph. For me Kavanaugh/Biden are apples and oranges. SCJ s ia lifetime appointed position on which the only "say" the voters have is electing the president they want to be the chooser. Republicans, at the direction of McConnell, broke those rules. His blatant disregard for the will of the voters when he instructed his majority to not even consider Obama's pick was an action that perpetuated ugly bipartisanship. Merrick Garland was a unifying choice, well-respected by both republicans and democrats. McConnell was flexing his muscle, resulting in the dems flexing back when they saw a chance. While they didn't have a prayer of actually preventing Kavanaugh from being approved, political damage was inflicted on republican senators who approved Kavanaugh.

So - having an issue with Kavanaugh as SCJ cannot be compared directly with choosing between Biden and Trump. Especially if the only aspect one is considering is whether or not they are guilty of sexual assault! Because in that case you then have to want all the same media "investigation" that you're asking for Biden's accuser to be done for Trump's accusers and no one has once suggested that here.

People choosing not to vote for Biden because they believe Tara Reade, or find him creepy, or think his Ukraine dealings were sketchy, or maybe just think he's an old geezer, doesn't even seem to be the issue in this thread. It's about trying to shame women who call themselves feminists into admitting that they are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree on this. I see the issue of Reade and Ford as exactly the same in regard to people's reactions to the two accusations.

I don't see it as an attempt to shame anyone but rather an attempt to note an internal struggle by @nala with the situation. How someone perceives it is where the shame might come into play.
 
redwood66 said:
We can agree to disagree on this. I see the issue of Reade and Ford as exactly the same in regard to people's reactions to the two accusations.
Click to expand...

So this isn't about the accusations themselves, but people's reactions to the accusations?
 
Maria D said:
So this isn't about the accusations themselves, but people's reactions to the accusations?
Click to expand...

That's always been my issue with them, the hypocrisy, not the accusations themselves. It's not my thread though. I feel exactly the same about Reade as I did about Ford which is in my post you responded to above. The difference in reactions makes me think it's about power and getting it, not about the women.
 
redwood66 said:
We can agree to disagree on this. I see the issue of Reade and Ford as exactly the same in regard to people's reactions to the two accusations.

I don't see it as an attempt to shame anyone but rather an attempt to note an internal struggle by @nala with the situation. How someone perceives it is where the shame might come into play.
Click to expand...

Ty for understanding my motivation for this thread. No matter how much some posters here try to twist my words, they need to just revisit my posts to see what you see. But Some people prefer to create their own narrative to cope with their version of reality...hopefully they just scroll past my posts if they find themselves so offended!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top