Tara Reade who accuses Biden of sexual assault now fears for her life.

[Revoltingest]

Consider that Obama was first against McCain and then against Romney. When the alternatives are that bad, I don't find it surprising that people chose someone as terrible as Obama just to avoid the alternative. Right or wrong, they weren't exactly presented with an enticing prospect from the other party.

The people in each party chose those candidates to run
for President. They had alternatives, but they chose the
pro war candidates.
I recall how Democrats vigorously protested against the
wars when Bush was Prez. But those abruptly ended
when the wars became Obama's....despite his initial lie
that he would end them, & despite his expanding one
in the "surge".
The voters really don't have much problem with war,
unless it's the other party in the White House. Objection
to war is really more of a political tool to fight Republicans.
The people, not a wealthy minority, bear that responsibility.

It was similar in 2016 when the Democratic Party put forward Hillary Clinton for their campaign, a corrupt warmonger with an atrocious record. She proved to be a deadweight too.

I favored Bernie over her (a fellow socialist). But the
people rejected him, despite her having voted to start
& continue the wars, violent pro-Israel stance, & threat
to "obliterate Iran".
As I recall, even you preferred that she win the presidency.
Yet neither the wealthy nor the MIC hold sway over you.

Which is the case for any other trial by jury where the defendant loses, hence my seeing him the same way I see any other sex offender. The fact that he lost a civil case rather than a criminal one doesn't erase what he did.

No, in civil trials, the threshold for finding liability
is only a preponderance of evidence, ie, "51%".
In criminal trials, the bar for finding guilt is much
higher at "beyond a reasonable doubt", ie, "99%"
This is a very important distinction, despite the fact
that Trump is still a sexual predator.

Castro was initially popular in his country, so overthrowing him, especially to advance American interests, would have been a blatant encroachment on Cuban will at that time. Putin is different in that he has been ruling with an iron fist for years and is now a threat to multiple neighbors aside from the one he has already invaded and subjected to war crimes.

A failed US assassination or coup in Russia would
enhance Putin's power, & potentially provoke his
carrying out previously empty threats of nuclear
attacks on the west. When considering foreign
adventurism, one must carefully consider both
rewards and the risks.
A go proverb: "Rich men don't pick fights".
When winning, avoid aggressive moves that could
lose the game The west is currently winning because
Russia runs low on morale, materiel, & men.
The safest path to victory is letting Putin lose by
attrition, or be removed by fellow Russians.

Hey look at us....I'm the pragmatic peacenik wanting
only military & humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.
But you...the fierce critic of disastrous US foreign
intervention...call for USA to assassinate the leader
of Earth's largest nuclear power...nukes he threatens
to use. I like this delineation of roles.

If it's just a question of competence, different methods for interventionism could be discussed, but entirely taking the option of intervening off the table under any circumstances in any country strikes me as both unrealistic and potentially harmful (e.g., imagine if the US had been isolationist in World War II).

Invoking Hitler to justify Putin's assassination, eh.
I find your strategy & reasoning "both unrealistic and potentially harmful".

 

[Revoltingest]

You do. God's government is real. Right now, it's fixing people's mind and heart. Soon, it will fix all problems.
Won't you agree though, that starting with human's mentality is a promising 'agenda'?

Are you saying that this God person is the one behind
giving us a choice between Biden & Trump....again?
I think you just created 3.7 atheists.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The people in each party chose those candidates to run
for President. They had alternatives, but they chose the
pro war candidates.
I recall how Democrats vigorously protested against the
wars when Bush was Prez. But those abruptly ended
when the wars became Obama's....despite his initial lie
that he would end them, & despite his expanding one
in the "surge".
The voters really don't have much problem with war,
unless it's the other party in the White House. Objection
to war is really more of a political tool to fight Republicans.
The people, not a wealthy minority, bear that responsibility.

Didn't Hillary Clinton beat Sanders to the nomination partially because superdelegates sided with her? I'm not familiar with the inner workings of how each party picks its candidates, but I vaguely recall that superdelegates' decisions were a controversial issue back then:

The answer has to do with a quirk unique to the Democratic Party called superdelegates. They are delegates to the party convention -- usually members of the DNC and other state and federal elected officials -- who are allowed to endorse their own pick regardless of how their home state votes.

And this cycle, at least at the moment, they are overwhelmingly behind Clinton's White House bid.

What's a Super Delegate, and Why Did Clinton Win Them?

How is it that Bernie Sanders won only one more delegate than Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, given his 22-point victory at the polls?

www.nbcnews.com

Furthermore, Sanders has always been unable to gain traction among Black voters, so that's at least one factor he could have worked on but didn't.

I also wonder how many people acquiesce or stay silent on warmongering presidents due to a sort of bystander effect: if they mistakenly believe that the only possible choices for president are all warmongers and they see that no other voters have noticeably spoken up, they may justify the silence to themselves because "the alternatives are even worse, so at least I picked the lesser evil."

I favored Bernie over her (a fellow socialist). But the
people rejected him, despite her having voted to start
& continue the wars, violent pro-Israel stance, & threat
to "obliterate Iran".
As I recall, even you preferred that she win the presidency.
Yet neither the wealthy nor the MIC hold sway over you.

I would have wanted Bernie to win instead of her, but he didn't get the nomination.

Also, my views on foreign policy have significantly changed since. It would factor a lot more into my perspective now.

I'm not sure why people chose her over him, but she proved to be an insufficiently popular failure in every election she has been in, so her stances ultimately weren't attractive enough to voters to win her an election.

No, in civil trials, the threshold for finding liability
is only a preponderance of evidence, ie, "51%".
In criminal trials, the bar for finding guilt is much
higher at "beyond a reasonable doubt", ie, "99%"
This is a very important distinction, despite the fact
that Trump is still a sexual predator.

Then Trump's culpability is still more established than Biden's thus far, since the latter hasn't lost either a criminal or civil case.

That's quite a low bar, though, and it seems to me that it shows the necessity of change within both parties.

A failed US assassination or coup in Russia would
enhance Putin's power, & potentially provoke his
carrying out previously empty threats of nuclear
attacks on the west. When considering foreign
adventurism, one must carefully consider both
rewards and the risks.
A go proverb: "Rich men don't pick fights".
When winning, avoid aggressive moves that could
lose the game The west is currently winning because
Russia runs low on morale, materiel, & men.
The safest path to victory is letting Putin lose by
attrition, or be removed by fellow Russians.

Hey look at us....I'm the pragmatic peacenik wanting
only military & humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.
But you...the fierce critic of disastrous US foreign
intervention...call for USA to assassinate the leader
of Earth's largest nuclear power...nukes he threatens
to use. I like this delineation of roles.

I never mentioned assassination, and I think it would be extremely dangerous and unwise for the US to try such a thing. Don't assume something so drastic when I didn't say it.

What I suggested was removing him from power by non-military/non-violent means (i.e., primarily through intelligence services). He could then be imprisoned by a new leader who either opposed him or at least opposed the war on Ukraine.

The US has a lot of experience with overthrowing regimes. It has gone badly before and has usually been done for malicious, self-serving reasons regardless of other populations' interests, but at least this time it would be for a good reason and might even help a lot of Russians (and Ukrainians, of course) in the long term.

You have a good point that Putin could become even more dangerous if a coup failed, though. I don't think the US should try that unless a war of attrition became impossible to maintain for Ukraine and the choice came down to instigating a coup or watching Putin take over Ukraine and possibly try to invade more countries.

Invoking Hitler to justify Putin's assassination, eh.
I find your strategy & reasoning "both unrealistic and potentially harmful".

Not assassination, and see above.

 

[Revoltingest]

Didn't Hillary Clinton beat Sanders to the nomination partially because superdelegates sided with her?

Yes, in several states.
Some info...

How Delegates to the National Presidential Conventions are Chosen

A short description of how delegates to the presidential political party national conventions are selected.

www.thoughtco.com

I'm not familiar with the inner workings of how each party picks its candidates, but I vaguely recall that superdelegates' decisions were a controversial issue back then:

The Democrats' nominating process is indeed corrupt.

How Democratic Superdelegates Decided the 2016 Election

In effect this year, more than any before superdelegates may have not only decided the Democratic nominee, but they likely also chose the next President of the United States.

www.huffpost.com

What's a Super Delegate, and Why Did Clinton Win Them?

How is it that Bernie Sanders won only one more delegate than Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, given his 22-point victory at the polls?

www.nbcnews.com

Furthermore, Sanders has always been unable to gain traction among Black voters, so that's at least one factor he could have worked on but didn't.

How do you know he didn't work on it?

I also wonder how many people acquiesce or stay silent on warmongering presidents due to a sort of bystander effect: if they mistakenly believe that the only possible choices for president are all warmongers and they see that no other voters have noticeably spoken up, they may justify the silence to themselves because "the alternatives are even worse, so at least I picked the lesser evil."

Opinions vary on what is "possible".
It's possible that a Libertarian could win.
But it's so improbable that it's reasonable to call it impossible.

I would have wanted Bernie to win instead of her, but he didn't get the nomination.

Also, my views on foreign policy have significantly changed since. It would factor a lot more into my perspective now.

I'm not sure why people chose her over him, but she proved to be an insufficiently popular failure in every election she has been in, so her stances ultimately weren't attractive enough to voters to win her an election.

She was attractive enuf to win, having received
more total votes than Trump. But the electoral
college system isn't based upon that.
She had support from many because they wanted
a female President. Her record & agendas were
largely ignored.
It irked me that Democrats (& Republicans) paid
no attention to her penchant for violent policies.

Then Trump's culpability is still more established than Biden's thus far, since the latter hasn't lost either a criminal or civil case.

That's quite a low bar, though, and it seems to me that it shows the necessity of change within both parties.

There are far greater dangers posed here than sexual
predation, eg, war, stacking SCOTUS with anti-civil
libertarians, war, insurrection, war. The difference is
harm to a few individuals vs harming entire segments
of a population, both domestically & abroad.

I never mentioned assassination, and I think it would be extremely dangerous and unwise for the US to try such a thing. Don't assume something so drastic when I didn't say it.

You posted....
"... if the US could intervene in Russia non-militarily to remove Putin from power..."
And in post #212, you compared killing Putin with killing Castro, thus showing
that we were discussing assassination.
USA has no political power in Russia.
What would that mean other than covertly assassinating him?

You must be able to see why I inferred what I did.

What I suggested was removing him from power by non-military/non-violent means (i.e., primarily through intelligence services). He could then be imprisoned by a new leader who either opposed him or at least opposed the war on Ukraine.

You only added "non-violent" in this post.
How would intelligence services effect such a coup within Russia?
Do you see the risks of doing this?

The US has a lot of experience with overthrowing regimes.

And failing at it.

It has gone badly before and has usually been done for malicious, self-serving reasons regardless of other populations' interests, but at least this time it would be for a good reason and might even help a lot of Russians (and Ukrainians, of course) in the long term.

Believing that US motives are more ethical this time
doesn't increase the chances of success, nor does it
reduce the risks & terrible consequences of failure.

You have a good point that Putin could become even more dangerous if a coup failed, though. I don't think the US should try that unless a war of attrition became impossible to maintain for Ukraine and the choice came down to instigating a coup or watching Putin take over Ukraine and possibly try to invade more countries.

Not assassination, and see above.

If Putin is to be killed, it should not be by USA.
Let his own people make that choice, which could be legal there.
And let's hope his replacement is a reasonable & peaceful person.

 

[averageJOE]

I don't know why everyone started talking about everything and other than Tara Reade. I don't really expect anyone to watch all 2 hours of these videos (just like I doubt anyone watched Tara Reade's actual interview), but to sum it up; these body language experts conclude she is not lying. Joe Biden sexually assaulted this woman.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know why everyone started talking about everything and other than Tara Reade. I don't really expect anyone to watch all 2 hours of these videos (just like I doubt anyone watched Tara Reade's actual interview), but to sum it up; these body language experts conclude she is not lying. Joe Biden sexually assaulted this woman.

These experts can speak to the likelihood of her
being honest, but this doesn't mean that her
recollection is accurate. She has a history of
perceiving reality differently from others.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/politics/tara-reade-biden-allegation/index.html

 

[averageJOE]

These experts can speak to the likelihood of her
being honest, but this doesn't mean that her
recollection is accurate. She has a history of
perceiving reality differently from others.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/politics/tara-reade-biden-allegation/index.html

We ALL do that. Like the saying goes; there is 3 sides to every story, your side, my side, and the truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

We ALL do that. Like the saying goes; there is 3 sides to every story, your side, my side, and the truth.

Some are more divorced from reality than others.
Their claims are less reliable.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That has nothing to do with the example I provided.
I said that that feminist pointed out that the consent can be withdrawn even the day after the sexual act.

I was quoting @nPeace . Mind directing me to your example?

 

[nPeace]

If the person vocally asked the other to stop and this did not occur, then that person can "cry rape."

That doesn't mean it's rape.
Many a woman does cry rape, when it's not.

Yes. The consent was withdrawn. Imagine the scenerio: guy is rough and the girl is saying "Stop, I don't want this, it's too rough" and the guy continues to have sex with her. That's abusive. She did not consent to that.

Image the guy tries not to be rough, and tries his best to make the sex - Not rape - less uncomfortable.
She consented to sex. That's what she's getting. Sex. She didn't consent to a massage.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, but mine is more real than yours, because I say so.

Okay. Whatever you say.

That will never work in practice. And we have tried that one before in history.

It does work actually... for a time.
Just like the man that swam with a crocodile... until, one day...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That doesn't mean it's rape.
Many a woman does cry rape, when it's not.

Yes, it does:

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

An Updated Definition of Rape

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Image the guy tries not to be rough, and tries his best to make the sex - Not rape - less uncomfortable.
She consented to sex. That's what she's getting. Sex. She didn't consent to a massage.

While the law appears to be both changing on this and may vary on the court (the attached source states this), I would say it absolutely is still rape. If a person continues after a person says stop, they are sexually assaulting that person. If the person thought they wanted sex, but the sex turns out unpleasant or they change their minds, they are absolutely entitled to end it. If the other person does not, they are abusing that person.

No Means No?: Withdrawal of Consent During Intercourse and the Continuing Evolution of the Definition of Rape | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

 

[nPeace]

Yes, it does:

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

An Updated Definition of Rape

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Without the consent. Okay.

While the law appears to be both changing on this and may vary on the court (the attached source states this), I would say it absolutely is still rape. If a person continues after a person says stop, they are sexually assaulting that person. If the person thought they wanted sex, but the sex turns out unpleasant or they change their minds, they are absolutely entitled to end it. If the other person does not, they are abusing that person.

No Means No?: Withdrawal of Consent During Intercourse and the Continuing Evolution of the Definition of Rape | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

Yes, the law is changing. Indeed.
It looks like we agreed on some things.

 

[fantome profane]

That doesn't mean it's rape.
Many a woman does cry rape, when it's not.


Image the guy tries not to be rough, and tries his best to make the sex - Not rape - less uncomfortable.
She consented to sex. That's what she's getting. Sex. She didn't consent to a massage.

Imagine someone consented to a cup of tea, and got a cup of tea. But she just assumed it was going to be orange pekoe and she ended up getting lemon zinger. She is under no obligation to drink that tea. Even if she takes a few sips, she can withdraw her consent to tea at any point.

 

[nPeace]

Are you saying that this God person is the one behind
giving us a choice between Biden & Trump....again?

Giving you the choice? No more than you gave your children the choice to vote for either.

I think you just created 3.7 atheists.

Me? Don't blame me. That's their choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Me? Don't blame me. That's their choice.

"Blame" you?
Nay!
I thank you for inspiring believers to say WTF
about the dubious man behind the curtain.

 

[nPeace]

Imagine someone consented to a cup of tea, and got a cup of tea. But she just assumed it was going to be orange pekoe and she ended up getting lemon zinger. She is under no obligation to drink that tea. Even if she takes a few sips, she can withdraw her consent to tea at any point.

Good one.
If she agreed to sex, and assumed it would be vaginal, but the guy went for the anus, she certainly has the right to say no... Something I am not arguing against.
Hope fully she makes her wishes clear, by screaming her head off, and fighting. Then, it would be rape, if the guy forces her.

I see the point you are making, here.
There is a difference though. No one is going to grab your head, and force the tea down your throat.

I'm of the opinion that giving consent to sex, is not rape.
To me, rape is not defined by how you feel or don't feel about the sex... but on if something is forced on you, which you didn't consent to.

You make a valid point, I have to say.
It is a difficult ball to return.

 

[nPeace]

Imagine someone consented to a cup of tea, and got a cup of tea. But she just assumed it was going to be orange pekoe and she ended up getting lemon zinger. She is under no obligation to drink that tea. Even if she takes a few sips, she can withdraw her consent to tea at any point.

How about this...
During sex, girl says, stop.
Guy says wait, let me finish.
Should the girl let him finish? If not, why not?

 

[fantome profane]

How about this...
During sex, girl says, stop.
Guy says wait, let me finish.
Should the girl let him finish? If not, why not?

It is not a complicated concept. If she says stop, stop. Because if you don't stop when she says stop you are forcing her, you are raping her.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

How about this...
During sex, girl says, stop.
Guy says wait, let me finish.
Should the girl let him finish? If not, why not?

One person's satiation is not worth another's trauma.