SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[loomer]

(Biden ain't beating Trump).

What data are you using to come to this conclusion ?

Gut feeling, plain and simple.

How does your analysis of the options change if the data shows that Biden has a chance of winning ?

Not by much, to be blunt. The basic principle remains the same, but the overall outcome is improved. It remains a choice between whether one's principles admit the support of a rapist or mandate that that support be withheld, even at the cost of a negative outcome.

No-saying is the basis for future civil disobedience and revolt because it helps to indicate that the election was not in fact legitimate.

I'm not sure I follow this.

Do you have any historical basis to suggest that a large number of people choosing not to vote* leads to the election being considered illegitimate ?

If not, why do you think 2020 will be any different ?

*People being unable to vote is a different matter.

Not on hand, but you've mistaken my point. The illegitimacy is determined after the fact once subsequent civil disobedience and revolt declares it to be so, and no-saying begins with the refusal to vote and extends into civil disobedience.

"Biden can't win" is an utterly unproveable assertion either way, but one that is not supported by what polling data we currently have or the precedent of Presidents who bungled a national crisis on this scale. It is, however, an increasingly popular excuse for Leftists who don't want to support him.

To be blunt, it strikes me as (ironically, given what I've been accused of) a way for them to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, by claiming that the defeat they're working toward is inevitable. Inevitability is always a real nice excuse to do shitty things.

You know, it's funny. I'm not working towards a defeat here. I'm not working towards anything but trying to get you to understand the nature of democracy and to be willing to actually own your position. Being as I'm not an American and lack a meaningful platform, very little I do or say can meaningfully impact on the outcome of the election in any way, except insofar as it influences individual voters. As Ralin is a bad faith actor, nothing I say will influence his decision, and I very much doubt that a clarification of the concept of no-saying is going to motivate anyone else on this board to fill a null ballot even if they accept the premise of assent to consent-based governance. And given that my own personal position, removed from this issue of democratic theory, is that yes - this is a time you swallow voting for a repugnant actor and then try and live with the consequences of that action, or even engage in treasonous acts of rebellion if the election turns up a Trump victory - I'm not in favour of surrender at all. I'm just not in favour of allowing the further collapse of the democratic process into conditions of discursive non-rationality that render actual democratic engagement impossible, which an unvarnished 'Blue no matter who' position that rejects the possibility of principled no-saying represents.

I remember how many people were saying that Trump couldn't beat Hillary. Until election night. I suspect that all the people saying he couldn't win then helped him win by convincing Democrat voters that they didn't need to go to the polls and convincing Republican voters that they needed to turn up. If so, I'm not sure if I want the people saying that Biden can't win to stop.

I'm only questioning it here because it's a major assumption in Loomer's reasoning.

It's really not, it's just a personal position. I don't think Biden can win, period, but if he can, it shifts the equation only slightly - the underlying clash of value judgments remains the same. Do you support a rapist to stop a fascist, and in doing so, legitimate the system that made you pick between Rapist Neoliberal A and Worse Rapist and Fascist B? Maybe it's more palatable if you have 100% certainty that your single vote will be the deciding factor between the two evils - it'd certainly motivate me to swallow my disgust and support a rapist to stop a fascist - but that central underlying question remains the same whether the odds are 0%, 50%, or 100%. Those who answer yes ought to be prepared to accept that actually, yes - they are supporting a rapist. They are saying, by participating in the election that gave them those two choices, that they are okay with that choice being offered. Democracy is often ugly in this way, but it only gets uglier when we don't remember that there is the third choice of no-saying and civil disobedience when neither presented option is acceptable.

This is why it is imperative that those voting for Biden for the sake of democracy fully own that position. Voting for Biden is voting for a rapist. It is supporting a rapist, and it is saying 'yes, I am okay with voting for a rapist' even in the face of protests to the contrary because by participating in the vote at all, one signals one's acceptance of its legitimacy and the (presumed) legitimacy of its candidates. This, again, may be a sacrifice worth making - but if those advocating for it lose sight of the full extent of what it is they demand people do, they actually threaten the further erosion of the speech conditions necessary for a functioning modern democracy.

[mr friendly guy]

I am not American, but from looking at YT videos from the "anti establishment" Left, I imagine not voting for Biden they hope to push for next time for a candidate more to their liking, based on the fact if the democrats keep on fielding candidates who lose and people suffer under Trump's policy, the democrats next time may be more incline to pick someone different from the usual "corporatist" bent. Another way of looking at it, is long term goals (altering the system / shifting the overton window by a fair amount) vs short term goal (get rid of Trump, and then figure out what to do with Biden) later.

[The Romulan Republic]

My counter-argument is that if Trump gets four more years, there won't be another free election. We won't teach the DNC a lesson and then get a good nominee in 2024 (and that worked so well over the last four years, didn't it?). Wisconsin's primary is a look at what's in store for us. Our elections will be as free as Russia's after four more years of Trump, if we still have elections at all.

If you want to have a chance at a progressive nominee in 2024, that is an excellent reason to vote for Biden now. Because, again, Biden doesn't want to be dictator.

Saying that Sanders was winning until SC gave Biden a world of momentum ignores the fact that he was against a fractured field of fairly similar candidates. Had it just been him versus one of those people, it would likely be 2016 all over again.

Maybe. We'll never know for sure. If Biden had flamed out in SC, though, I'd bet good money that Bernie would be the nominee.

It also doesn't help that the progressives and "anti-establishment" folks were divided too. If it had been Bernie, Yang, and Warren's people together from the start, I think we could have won. I actually put some blame on Bernie here. I said before this primary even started that if progressives wanted to win, we needed to unite behind a single candidate. I initially supported Warren in part because she got in first, and I thought it was a mistake for both Bernie and Warren to run. Only once it became clear that Bernie was stronger (post-Iowa) did I fully support him, and start arguing that Warren should drop out.

We fought each other, and we failed to turn out, and we lost. I hope we'll learn the lesson in 2024, or that there will be enough of us then that it won't matter.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also: it is clear that for the time being, there is exactly one primary in the Democratic race that matters, and that's South Carolina. That's ridiculous unfair, as SC isn't really representative of the nation, or the Democratic electorate, or even entirely of the black vote (who God knows deserve greater representation in politics). Its one state of disproportionately older, conservative-leaning black voters. But since that IS the only primary that matter right now, progressives need to build their strategy around that.

We need to do three things for 2024:

1. Elect Biden, because otherwise we won't get another election in four years.

2. Consolidate around a single nominee. AOC is the obvious choice, though others may emerge.

3. Spend four years doing nothing but wining support in SC.

[chimericoncogene]

We need to do three things for 2024:

1. Elect Biden, because otherwise we won't get another election in four years.

I ain't American, but it seems to me that everyone seems to underestimate the resilience of the American democratic system. It's a pretty robust system, with vast commercial, industrial, and media interests invested on both sides of the Red/Blue divide such that a balance of power is maintained in a transparent and obvious manner. It always seems to be falling apart on the big screen because, from the perspective of one side, it is always falling apart, and both sides need to maintain the balance of power (which is why first-past-the-post is awesome - it usually rewards centrists who keep the country together - simple pick, great choice).

America has had fifteen elections in the past sixty years without incident. The Army is loyal, there are no secession movements, and people mostly have food on the table. America has no hordes on its borders, no unfriendly neighbors, and the most advantageous geopolitical position in the history of mankind.

America will be perfectly fine, abortion, gay marriage, guns/no guns, free healthcare or no. It just looks bad. But when has it ever looked good?

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe. But a fair number of things have happened the last few years that no one thought could happen. The American system is (was?) strong as these things go, but any system can fail if you put enough pressure on it. Trump has been demolishing the safeguards one by one, and some of them were already badly eroded before he came along. Right now, we have a President who was elected against the will of the people, exonerated by a Senate that admitted his criminality and didn't care, leading a party engaged in rampant voter suppression upheld by a Supreme Court who's deciding votes are a stolen seat and an accused rapist and perjurer.

In what world is that "perfectly fine"? And how much more pressure can the system take (keeping in mind that we are probably in the opening weeks of a new Great Depression) before it fails completely?

[chimericoncogene]

Maybe. But a fair number of things have happened the last few years that no one thought could happen. The American system is (was?) strong as these things go, but any system can fail if you put enough pressure on it.

In what world is that "perfectly fine"? And how much more pressure can the system take (keeping in mind that we are probably in the opening weeks of a new Great Depression) before it fails completely?

It's just a frickkin' super-pandemic. Millions may die, sure, but life will go on. The economy will adjust eventually. We've had one every century, and smaller ones every decade.

Hailing from East Asia, we've seen it all before. The economy tanks for half a year (probably more this time, we're underestimating what a global superpandemic will do over here), people produce face masks by the billions per day (seriously, if we need 'em, we can ramp up in a year), everyone wears face masks for a few years, and the economy staggers back. In the middle, statistics indicate suffering on a hithero unimaginable scale, lots and lots of tears flow, and it's all quite horrible. But history suggests the economy bounces back super-quickly after small-medium pandemics, and the 1918 flu pandemic sure didn't make as much of a mark as World War II, even if it killed as many people.

Nations have survived far worse.

Individuals, OTOH, are fragile.

Maintain social distancing, make your own masks, and be prepared. The nation will survive. You need to look out for yourself, because you personally, and those around you, are at far greater risk of being harmed than the nation as whole.

[Gandalf]

Saying that Sanders was winning until SC gave Biden a world of momentum ignores the fact that he was against a fractured field of fairly similar candidates. Had it just been him versus one of those people, it would likely be 2016 all over again.

Maybe. We'll never know for sure. If Biden had flamed out in SC, though, I'd bet good money that Bernie would be the nominee.

I doubt it. Once enough of the "centre lane" candidates started to wither, the support was going to coalesce around the remaining ones. Last one standing wins that group, which is big enough to take the nomination. If Biden had dropped early, it might well be Klobuchar v Trump.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'd like a clarification on how "Vote Blue, No Matter Who" is meaningfully different from people who vote for Republicans no matter how awful because "pro-life", "gerns", "sanctity of marriage", etc. I have seen nothing about Biden's record that makes me he will try and reverse all of the horrible shit that's happened under Trump. He doesn't seem as driven to keep it accelerating at break-neck pace, but he is at his core a die-hard Centrist that has said, unprompted on multiple occasions, that he will work with the Republicans and meet them in the middle. And if we're being incredibly generous, he is very very slightly left of center. If we're being more realistic, he is a bit right of center.

I do not expect Biden to push for closing the concentration camps. Biden absolutely will not do anything to ease the bootheel of the insurance industry off our throats. He probably won't chant "Yeah, harder!" I guess? He won't fight for student loan relief. He's been pretty clear that he doesn't give a single wet shit about people under 50. He's not even gonna nominate a leftie to the Supreme Court, if he gets elected. He'll go for a centrist pick, to try and make concessions to the GOP. He's gonna be the lifeguard that will just sit there and shout at us to stop running around the pool, but if someone's drowning he won't throw lift a finger to help them get out of the water. Yeah, that's an improvement from the "life guard" that's using the rescue pole to shove heads under water until the bubbles stop. Doesn't mean he should be a life guard.

Joe Biden is to the right of Obama. Obama, who deported more people than Bush the Lesser. Obama, who amped up the drone strikes (including against civilians).

I very much understand why there are so many who look at Biden and see no good reason to vote for him. He has a pretty sordid history. His current statements aren't especially inspiring. His propensity for lashing out at people who question his judgment is worrying. His insistence of working with Republicans is, frankly, terrifying and does not make it easy to convince people that the guy will actually stop the GOP's worst tendencies. How do we know that he won't give the GOP concessions on human rights abuses when the GOP smiles and promises that they will totally support his effort to do X for the middle class.. and then they get what they wanted and laugh at him as they pull the football away. Biden refuses to see that the GOP is always negotiating in bad faith these days. Add in that he has a very easily confirmed history of being... grabby? And that there are rape allegations against him? It suddenly becomes very, very clear why there are so many who are going to refuse to vote for the guy. The argument for voting Biden is of the same structure as the argument for voting for Trump: "[candidate] may be just awful as a human being, but he will protect [pet policy]." If you think the harms of your preferred candidate are outweighed by the good you believe he will enact... Sure, that's why you vote for someone. But don't think that everyone has the same calculations as you. Don't think that everyone has the same faith in your candidate's motivation to go through with protecting your favored policy. If you think voting for Biden is critical for protecting the future of the nation, that's your decision to make. It doesn't mean that you can pretend that you did not consider "possible rapist" to be disqualifying, though.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd like a clarification on how "Vote Blue, No Matter Who" is meaningfully different from people who vote for Republicans no matter how awful because "pro-life", "gerns", "sanctity of marriage", etc.

Because the positions and of the Democratic and Republican parties are not equally bad, no matter how many times vapid little trolls and Kremlin bots chant "Both Sides are Just As Bad" to justify their actions.

I have seen nothing about Biden's record that makes me he will try and reverse all of the horrible shit that's happened under Trump. He doesn't seem as driven to keep it accelerating at break-neck pace, but he is at his core a die-hard Centrist that has said, unprompted on multiple occasions, that he will work with the Republicans and meet them in the middle. And if we're being incredibly generous, he is very very slightly left of center. If we're being more realistic, he is a bit right of center.

Biden will protect and probably expand Healthcare. He will appoint Supreme Court Justices to lifetime positions who, if not progressive, will at least not rule based according to the Bible or the Constitution as it was in 1800. And he's not a climate denier.

And above all, he has shown no aspirations to be a dictator. He'll be gone in eight, possibly four years. I'm not convinced Trump will ever leave, except in a coffin.

I do not expect Biden to push for closing the concentration camps. Biden absolutely will not do anything to ease the bootheel of the insurance industry off our throats. He probably won't chant "Yeah, harder!" I guess? He won't fight for student loan relief. He's been pretty clear that he doesn't give a single wet shit about people under 50. He's not even gonna nominate a leftie to the Supreme Court, if he gets elected. He'll go for a centrist pick, to try and make concessions to the GOP. He's gonna be the lifeguard that will just sit there and shout at us to stop running around the pool, but if someone's drowning he won't throw lift a finger to help them get out of the water. Yeah, that's an improvement from the "life guard" that's using the rescue pole to shove heads under water until the bubbles stop. Doesn't mean he should be a life guard.

But if those are the only two options we have?

Joe Biden is to the right of Obama. Obama, who deported more people than Bush the Lesser. Obama, who amped up the drone strikes (including against civilians).

I very much understand why there are so many who look at Biden and see no good reason to vote for him. He has a pretty sordid history. His current statements aren't especially inspiring. His propensity for lashing out at people who question his judgment is worrying. His insistence of working with Republicans is, frankly, terrifying and does not make it easy to convince people that the guy will actually stop the GOP's worst tendencies. How do we know that he won't give the GOP concessions on human rights abuses when the GOP smiles and promises that they will totally support his effort to do X for the middle class.. and then they get what they wanted and laugh at him as they pull the football away. Biden refuses to see that the GOP is always negotiating in bad faith these days. Add in that he has a very easily confirmed history of being... grabby? And that there are rape allegations against him? It suddenly becomes very, very clear why there are so many who are going to refuse to vote for the guy. The argument for voting Biden is of the same structure as the argument for voting for Trump: "[candidate] may be just awful as a human being, but he will protect [pet policy]." If you think the harms of your preferred candidate are outweighed by the good you believe he will enact... Sure, that's why you vote for someone. But don't think that everyone has the same calculations as you. Don't think that everyone has the same faith in your candidate's motivation to go through with protecting your favored policy. If you think voting for Biden is critical for protecting the future of the nation, that's your decision to make. It doesn't mean that you can pretend that you did not consider "possible rapist" to be disqualifying, though.

So, I guess "TRR is cool with rape" has officially entered this board's canon, along with "TRR supports racism", "TRR supports imperialism", "TRR hates Russians", "TRR hates Chinese people", "TRR supports fascism", "TRR calls anyone who disagrees with him a fascist", and "TRR supports genocide". And has as much truth as all of them.

Fuck every single one of you. I wish I could sue half this board for defamation of character. It would be well-warranted.

Under any other circumstances, of course it would be disqualifying. It should be disqualifying. But here's the thing which nobody here happily labeling me a rape apologist wants to address: If Biden loses, Trump wins. And Trump has more accusations against him, as well as policies which are systematically worse for women and survivors of sexual abuse.

Oh, I know the excuse: "Not voting against someone isn't the same as actively voting for a rapist, look at my moral superiority!" But here's the thing: practically-speaking, there are only two options. Biden, or Trump. Practically-speaking, refusing to support Biden means you are helping Trump's reelection. And if you are going to tell me I have to own supporting a rapist, then you can fucking own supporting one too. And if you can't, you're a slimy, cowardly little hypocrite who doesn't give two shits about rape- you're just cynically using it to libel someone you disagree with.

Is there a third option? Sure. Refuse to participate in the political system altogether. That can take two basic forms.

1. Non-involvement. Sit on the sidelines, do fuck all, and pride yourself on your neutrality while better people try to fix the country.

2. Revolution. Discard all political and legal norms, and seek the immediate overthrow of the entire system, either by mass protest and civil disobedience, or by violence. Personally, I'm at the point where I'd support a national general strike if the public support was there for it to be effective. Until it is, though, there's not much that can be done on that front. I do not support armed revolt, because I know that the public support for it is not there, that we'd lose quickly, and that the price would be primarily paid by innocents, in exchange for accomplishing fuck-all.

Of course, what most of the anti-establishment crowd on this board probably really wants is a civil war. You have fantasies of a glorious revolution in which only the rich bad men will die, or maybe you don't care and you just want to see it all burn. Well, you'll probably get your wishes soon enough. I'm sure you'll all be bravely fighting on the front-lines, and not sitting and watching from a safe distance? Right?

[The Romulan Republic]

I will say this, though:

After this election, I'm done.

I will vote for Biden. I will do everything I can to help Biden win. Because Trump is bad in every way Biden is, plus a lot more, so if my choices are rapist, rapist who's also a climate denier dictator, I'm going to pick the one that hurts fewer people, instead of pretending that one choice is pro-rape and the other anti-rape.

But I will never forgive the Centrists for giving us this choice. After five years of praising MeToo, with the fate of the world at stake, they decided they'd rather vote for the lesser of two rapists than for a democratic socialist.

So, I plan to switch my affiliation back to Independent. Colorado now lets independents vote in party primaries, so there's no reason for me to be a Democrat other than symbolic support for the party. Which in light of recent events, I can no longer justify.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Dude. You view the Democrat position as less harmful. Your moral code places more value on protecting the things Trump and the Republicans seek to destroy. For a Republican, the moral weights are different. People who vote Republican regardless of how personally repugnant are doing so because the Republican party, in their view, protects things that they consider more morally critical. It's not a case of "both sides are bad" it's a case of acknowledging that you're both saying "Yes, my party's candidate has some bad stuff in their personal history. But I will ignore it because to do otherwise grants this guy I think is worse victory." It's not a misrepresentation, it's not both-sidism. It's simply the case that you value different things than Republicans and by being willing to effectively ignore any sin for the sake of protecting your personal agenda you're doing the same fucking thing Republicans do. Fucking everyone is willing to let a few things slide when they vote. It's inevitable. Be honest about it.

There are people who look at Biden's coziness with corporations and doubt he will fight for us. There are people who do not feel comfortable voting for someone who has a history of inappropriate behavior and an existing rape allegation. That doesn't mean they're okay with Trump winning. That means that they have a different set of priorities in their moral code than you. Voting for Not Biden is NOT voting for Trump. It's voting for Not Biden. No politician is owed our vote. There are large numbers of people who are yelling about "I will never vote for Biden" that were never gonna vote for any Democrat in the election.

I did not once accuse you of condoning rape, or being willing to ignore it. If you are willing to vote for Biden, though? It means that you either do not find the rape accusation credible enough to condemn Biden from the presidency or that, even if it is completely accurate, there are circumstances under which you will ignore that someone is a rapist to accomplish your goals. "But if Trump were't so terrible-!" You are still saying that you will vote for a potential rapist. No amount of hemming and hawing will make that not the case.

You wanna know what my voting plans are, come the general? I will probably hold my nose and vote for Biden despite my utter loathing of the fucker. I expect him to be a deeply disappointing POTUS that will not take meaningful strides toward advancing the agenda I want advanced. But, and I posted this above, I expect he will be more in line with "negligent lifeguard" than the actively malicious fucker we've got now who is drowning people on purpose. I will be deeply angry that he will be the person on the ballot who is least opposed to my guiding principles. The Greens aren't even a real party, and I fully expect them to nominate Jill Stein again. Who isn't exactly someone I would vote for even if I thought she stood a snowball's chance in hell. She's way too fucking cozy with Putin. Back in 2016, I voted for Hillary in the general in spite of her decidedly less than great history.

I am not saying that I think people who decide that Biden isn't qualified to receive their vote are correct in their calculations, that I think their decision is the correct decision. I am saying that I understand the decision, that I understand why they came to the conclusions they came to. Claiming that a vote for anyone but Biden is a vote for Trump is probably in the same ballpark of intellectual honesty as saying that you support rape because you plan to vote for Biden. A vote for the Green candidate, whoever it ends up being, is a vote for the Green candidate. A vote for the libertarian candidate is a vote for the libertarian candidate. Hell, if anything you should be grateful for every vote in favor of the libertarian candidate because they would have otherwise gone to the Republican that doesn't wanna smoke week. A vote for Vermin Supreme is a vote for Vermin Supreme. Generally speaking, a candidate wins by getting votes and not by their opponent NOT getting votes.


You know what I would love to see? Biden to drop out and endorse Bernie (though I would sincerely worry about Hillary's supporters from 2016 refusing to vote for him - there's a precedent for them going turncoat). Or Warren. Or fucking anybody who doesn't have so much baggage. But I don't see that happening unless Biden develops a serious illness. It's exceedingly unlikely. Realistically, I can just hope that he learns from the mistakes in 2016 and puts together a more effective campaign in battleground states. He will need to direct resources toward helping people navigate the voter suppression laws in the key battleground states. He will need a campaign platform better than "Look how awful Trump is!" He can show support for providing student loan relief of some sort. Even something so small as promising to put in serious effort for 0% interest rates. Putting out info to help college students navigate voting if they go to school in another state from their residence when not in school. Putting out info on how to get ID that satisfies standards in states with voter ID laws, accounting for money and even just fucking getting to where the IDs are available. Putting out info on which states allow mail-in ballots without needing a reason beyond "I wanna do it that way." Voter suppression is a huge issue, and I would hope Biden will recognize this and do what he can to help fight it. And I really fucking hope he wakes up and realizes that the Republicans will not act in good faith with him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Dude. You view the Democrat position as less harmful. Your moral code places more value on protecting the things Trump and the Republicans seek to destroy. For a Republican, the moral weights are different. People who vote Republican regardless of how personally repugnant are doing so because the Republican party, in their view, protects things that they consider more morally critical. It's not a case of "both sides are bad" it's a case of acknowledging that you're both saying "Yes, my party's candidate has some bad stuff in their personal history. But I will ignore it because to do otherwise grants this guy I think is worse victory." It's not a misrepresentation, it's not both-sidism. It's simply the case that you value different things than Republicans and by being willing to effectively ignore any sin for the sake of protecting your personal agenda you're doing the same fucking thing Republicans do. Fucking everyone is willing to let a few things slide when they vote. It's inevitable. Be honest about it.

What can I say? I don't believe that all morality is relative and merely a matter of perspective. Even arguing that it is, is, in fact, taking an absolutist position on morality. For me, I believe that sentient lives have inherent value, and that Democratic policies will cause less destruction to them, objectively, than Republican ones. So no, I don't see my position as equivalent to theirs'.

I suppose I could be wrong, I'm not omnipotent. I can only use my best judgement, fallible as it is, based on the information I have.

Yes, we all make compromises. If you don't, you end up politically irrelevant, except possibly as a spoiler. But the one I won't make is my commitment to preserving democracy and the rule of law against those who actively seek to replace them with dictatorship. And that means voting for Biden.

There are people who look at Biden's coziness with corporations and doubt he will fight for us. There are people who do not feel comfortable voting for someone who has a history of inappropriate behavior and an existing rape allegation. That doesn't mean they're okay with Trump winning. That means that they have a different set of priorities in their moral code than you. Voting for Not Biden is NOT voting for Trump. It's voting for Not Biden. No politician is owed our vote. There are large numbers of people who are yelling about "I will never vote for Biden" that were never gonna vote for any Democrat in the election.

Here's the thing, though, the point you and others keep evading:

All those ways Biden might be bad? Trump is definitely bad in all of those ways too, plus a whole bunch of others. So Trump winning does all the harm Biden winning does, plus a whole lot more.

Yeah, you can say "no politician is owed your vote". And technically, that's true. None of us owes Joe Biden a damn thing. But I'm not asking people to do it for Joe Biden. I'm asking people to do it for the people Trump has killed, and will kill. We owe THEM our votes.

I did not once accuse you of condoning rape, or being willing to ignore it. If you are willing to vote for Biden, though? It means that you either do not find the rape accusation credible enough to condemn Biden from the presidency or that, even if it is completely accurate, there are circumstances under which you will ignore that someone is a rapist to accomplish your goals. "But if Trump were't so terrible-!" You are still saying that you will vote for a potential rapist. No amount of hemming and hawing will make that not the case.

Not ignore it, no.

I will campaign and vote for Biden as long as he's the nominee. I will also continue to argue that his accusers' stories deserve coverage, even if its inconvenient. Should the evidence and outcry against Biden become strong enough to force him from the race (as unlikely as I think that), or to result in his impeachment when in office, I will welcome that too.

I will never ignore rape, or blame the victim.

You wanna know what my voting plans are, come the general? I will probably hold my nose and vote for Biden despite my utter loathing of the fucker.

Good.

I expect him to be a deeply disappointing POTUS that will not take meaningful strides toward advancing the agenda I want advanced. But, and I posted this above, I expect he will be more in line with "negligent lifeguard" than the actively malicious fucker we've got now who is drowning people on purpose. I will be deeply angry that he will be the person on the ballot who is least opposed to my guiding principles. The Greens aren't even a real party, and I fully expect them to nominate Jill Stein again. Who isn't exactly someone I would vote for even if I thought she stood a snowball's chance in hell. She's way too fucking cozy with Putin. Back in 2016, I voted for Hillary in the general in spite of her decidedly less than great history.

Indeed.

Believe me, I wish there were a viable Leftist third party. Unfortunately, the kinds of people who support third parties tend to be conspiracy theorists who pride themselves on never compromising their purity, never working with others, and blame any losses on "the system" rigging it, rather than the fact that they refuse to do anything to appeal to the 99% of the country who don't perfectly match their views. That's why they lose, and will continue to lose, until they get a clue.

In a sense, the "third party" of the US is the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. They simply choose to operate mostly within the big tent of the Democrats because it actually allows them to occassionally accomplish something.

I am not saying that I think people who decide that Biden isn't qualified to receive their vote are correct in their calculations, that I think their decision is the correct decision. I am saying that I understand the decision, that I understand why they came to the conclusions they came to. Claiming that a vote for anyone but Biden is a vote for Trump is probably in the same ballpark of intellectual honesty as saying that you support rape because you plan to vote for Biden. A vote for the Green candidate, whoever it ends up being, is a vote for the Green candidate. A vote for the libertarian candidate is a vote for the libertarian candidate. Hell, if anything you should be grateful for every vote in favor of the libertarian candidate because they would have otherwise gone to the Republican that doesn't wanna smoke week. A vote for Vermin Supreme is a vote for Vermin Supreme. Generally speaking, a candidate wins by getting votes and not by their opponent NOT getting votes.

That's true. And, its not true. Because practically-speaking, one of two men is going to win the Presidency. Refusing to vote for Biden, and arguing that others should do so, and attacking their character for supporting Biden, as some here have done... it may not help Trump as much as actively supporting Trump, but it does, nonetheless, help Trump. You can't avoid that reality of our political system.

You know what I would love to see? Biden to drop out and endorse Bernie (though I would sincerely worry about Hillary's supporters from 2016 refusing to vote for him - there's a precedent for them going turncoat).

Well, as long as we're talking fantasies, I'd like Abraham Lincoln to rise from the grave and run with AOC as his VP.

Or Warren. Or fucking anybody who doesn't have so much baggage. But I don't see that happening unless Biden develops a serious illness. It's exceedingly unlikely. Realistically, I can just hope that he learns from the mistakes in 2016 and puts together a more effective campaign in battleground states. He will need to direct resources toward helping people navigate the voter suppression laws in the key battleground states. He will need a campaign platform better than "Look how awful Trump is!" He can show support for providing student loan relief of some sort. Even something so small as promising to put in serious effort for 0% interest rates. Putting out info to help college students navigate voting if they go to school in another state from their residence when not in school. Putting out info on how to get ID that satisfies standards in states with voter ID laws, accounting for money and even just fucking getting to where the IDs are available. Putting out info on which states allow mail-in ballots without needing a reason beyond "I wanna do it that way." Voter suppression is a huge issue, and I would hope Biden will recognize this and do what he can to help fight it. And I really fucking hope he wakes up and realizes that the Republicans will not act in good faith with him.

I think that Biden is, for all his faults, an institutionalist and a pragmatist, and those instincts will prompt him to be, if not a good President, at least a mostly-tolerable one. I also think there's a real chance COVID or dementia forces him out, either during the race, or shortly after taking office. Which is why the single most important decision he will ever make his who his VP pick is. I will be watching his VP and cabinet/staff picks very closely, because odds are those are the folks who are really going to end up running things, if Biden's mind is as deteriorated as it appears to be.

[FireNexus]

Lincoln and AOC are actually both ineligible.

Also, as far as the Biden allegations, the only two reporters who have been able to confirm the details appear to be the Russia-skeptical Bernie or Busters who’ve already reported them. I don’t know about Reade’s accusations, but when Salon tried to confirm her story they couldn’t get one of the people to confirm it and couldn’t get Reade to give them the identity of the other one.

I know plenty enough about Halper and about Grim be deeply suspicious of their reporting, and their assurances of having done their homework given what I know about them. When you add the Putin praise shit that’s baked in to Reade to their weird leftist Russia skepticism, it smells too much.That said, one of the Kavanaugh accusers was coo-coo but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a rapist.

And grim was important to the Ford allegations. If Reade’s allegations are true, more credible reporters will find the other women that he would have to have sexually assaulted in short order. And they’ll presumably be able to confirm the details. There is just no way the story as described happened and there aren’t a trail of women as long as the Acela corridor from Delaware to DC.

[The Romulan Republic]

Lincoln and AOC are actually both ineligible.

I mean, Lincoln only served a few weeks of his second term?

Also, as far as the Biden allegations, the only two reporters who have been able to confirm the details appear to be the Russia-skeptical Bernie or Busters who’ve already reported them. I don’t know about Reade’s accusations, but when Salon tried to confirm her story they couldn’t get one of the people to confirm it and couldn’t get Reade to give them the identity of the other one.

You know, FireNexus, I may be willing to vote for Biden out of necessity, but I don't pretend that the allegations against him should be dismissed out of hand, blame the victim, or make a convenient exception to "believe women" when the accused is on my team. And even if this one is false (I suppose that's theoretically possible), there are about eight other women who've accused Biden of other forms of inappropriate contact or harassment.

I'll remember how consistent you were here next time you whine about sexist Bernie Bros.

I know plenty enough about Halper and about Grim be deeply suspicious of their reporting, and their assurances of having done their homework given what I know about them. When you add the Putin praise shit that’s baked in to Reade to their weird leftist Russia skepticism, it smells too much.That said, one of the Kavanaugh accusers was coo-coo but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a rapist.

Translation: "Believe women. Unless the accused is on my team, then the woman is lying."

You really are a systematically loathsome little cockroach, aren't you?

And grim was important to the Ford allegations. If Reade’s allegations are true, more credible reporters will find the other women that he would have to have sexually assaulted in short order. And they’ll presumably be able to confirm the details. There is just no way the story as described happened and there aren’t a trail of women as long as the Acela corridor from Delaware to DC.

Its true that offenders tend to re-offend. Its also true that it often takes time for accusations to come out, because there is still (as your post shows) a strong tendency to blame the woman and call her a liar, and that's amplified when the accused is a powerful man. Reade went to multiple organizations and campaigns with her story, and they ignored it. Sure, you could say that's because it wasn't credible. But its not going to exactly encourage other women to come forward.

And, again, there are already a bunch of women accusing him of misconduct, albeit not all of the same severity.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://commondreams.org/views/2020/04/ ... truth-rape

The Inconvenient Truth of Rape
Yes, we are in the middle of a contentious primary season and a presidential election with much on the line. And, yes, allegations of sexual assault or rape against the current leader in the Democratic primaries are inconvenient. But rape is even more inconvenient.

byAnthony Zenkus

The recent allegations of rape against Joe Biden have created a firestorm online. The accuser, Tara Reade, spoke with Katie Halper on her podcast last month and described in grim detail how Joe Biden violated her when she was a staffer in his office in 1993. Her story was graphic, detailing how she was digitally penetrated by Mr. Biden as he pinned her up against a wall.

The response has been sadly partisan, with those who support Joe Biden and want to see him as the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party roundly dismissing Ms. Reade’s charges as baseless and motivated by politics. When Reade came out with part of her story last April, she was doxxed and labeled a Putin supporter, and it’s been pointed out that she now supports Bernie Sanders for President as well. But none of these things should matter. Rape and sexual assault are not violations exclusive to one political party over another. Tara Reade’s story is credible, and the media and political establishment need to hear her.

As someone who has spent most of his career working with victims of sexual violence and currently teaches about this type of trauma at the university level, I can say that Tara Reade’s story rings true, like so many other stories of sexual assault I have heard throughout my professional career. That she waited so long to tell her full story, only disclosing part of the story last year, has been a criticism of detractors, but this is exactly how so many victims of sexual trauma handle their disclosures.

The trauma of sexual violence can affect mind, body and soul. A victim’s sense of time and place can be turned upside down. Memories often enter consciousness in pieces, unlike memories of non-traumatic events which are easier to recall fully and in a linear fashion. In the account, Ms. Reade remembered seemingly innocuous details: her legs hurting from walking on the marble floor on her way to meet Biden the day of the assault; wearing a skirt and no stockings because it was hot; the coldness of the wall she was pinned against.

Reade’s recollection of what was said during the encounter is spotty, with two chilling exceptions. The first: “C’mon, man, I heard you liked me,” Biden’s preemptive suggestion that she was to blame for what was happening to her. The second, simply: “You mean nothing to me.”

Many people who believed Dr. Blasey Ford when she came forward with her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are the same people now attempting to dismantle Tara Reade’s story. They only need to turn to Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate to understand why Reade’s story should be taken seriously.

When Senators asked why she couldn’t remember linear details of her account with Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, explained how the brain responds to trauma, sometimes creating disjointed memories, and how seemingly unimportant details can stand out while other key details may be lost. When Republicans criticized Blasey Ford for taking so long to come forward with her story, Democrats rightly came to her defense, pointing out that victims often take decades to come forward with their stories. Why the same deference is not given to Tara Reade is as perplexing as it is troubling.

In the sexual violence advocacy community it is well understood that survivors take time to tell their full stories. While I was a director at an advocacy agency, a young girl who was sexually abused by a male relative told police he fondled her above her clothing. Months later she spoke about the penetration. This is typical for victims of trauma. Rarely does the story come out all at once.

When Tara Reade joined other women in April of 2019 speaking about Biden’s on-going issue with inappropriate personal boundaries, she spoke about how he put his hands on her and caressed her neck. She did not speak about the most egregious abuse. Response from Biden supporters was swift and condemnatory. All of the women were publicly criticized, their stories dismissed, and their characters attacked.

In the age of #MeToo many people still question why survivors waver and hesitate in coming forward with their assaults. Imagine the additional pressure a survivor feels when an abuser holds a position of authority, is well known, and is among the politically powerful.

Despite the veracity with which news outlets jumped on the Blasey-Ford allegations, the media has been slow to acknowledge Reade’s story. Amanda Marcotte, in her March 31 piece in Salon, tries to present a case for the media’s hesitation, but ends up using the excuses of Reade’s detractors to muddy the waters and lessen the impact these allegations should have. Marcotte subtly points out that Reade only worked for Biden “briefly,” as if that’s somehow a factor in likelihood or severity of an assault. She points out that there were no witnesses, which is true; perpetrators rarely violate victims in front of others, although Biden’s personal boundary issues are available in numerous instances for anyone to see. Marcotte claims Reade’s story has “changed over time.” It has not. Details have been included now that Reade wasn’t comfortable including in the past.

Finally, Marcotte slams Reade for tweeting a post supportive of Russia. Why would this matter? Anyone can get raped, even people who like countries Marcotte and others find distasteful. Questioning from a place of understanding is one thing, feeding into rape-culture narrative is another. It is imperative to understand the difference.

It is important to understand why the term rape applies here. According to the Department of Justice in their expanded definition of rape, penetration of the body by anything, including fingers or an object, meets the standard. This is what Joe Biden has been accused of. It is serious, and it is disturbing.

Yes, Tara Reade took decades to tell her whole story to the public. Yes, we are in the middle of a contentious primary season and a presidential election with much on the line. And, yes, allegations of sexual assault or rape against the current leader in the Democratic primaries are inconvenient. But rape is even more inconvenient. I have learned this from the courageous survivors I have known throughout my professional career and in my personal life. It happens when you least expect it. It is intrusive, disruptive and life altering. Survivors do not get to choose when they are violated, but they do get to choose when and how they come forward.

[FireNexus]

I’m not dismissing the allegations out of hand. I’m deeply worried about the allegations, but there is a clear indication that they don’t reach the level of newsworthiness. Specifically that there is no apparent ability for independent reporters to confirm the reporting.

I’m not thrilled to be in a position where my bullshit detector is being set off like a smoke alarm at a Bob Marley concert by this. I have dumped my support of so many people I like and respect over these kinds of allegations that I have lost count. And I don’t even really like Joe Biden. He’s my 4th to last pick behind, from worst to best, Possible Member of a Cult, Ice Town, and Bernie. I wish somebody else would come forward or some credible journalist would confirm the reporting so I can stop fucking saying it.

I am not calling Reade a liar. I am saying that all of the other women I’ve been asked to believe over the past several years have had claims that were credibly reported. Reade’s does not. The inability to confirm the reporting by anyone besides Grim and Halper is the suspicious part. I don’t trust Katie Halper’s reporting On anything, and I don’t trust anything published by the intercept on its own. It having been almost two weeks without credible reporters being able to confirm the details of the story is important.

Why the fuck do you think I waited so long to say anything at all? Because I was waiting for independent confirmation of the story. Not only did it never come, but one reporter who tried to confirm it published the details of her failure to do so. If this story actually turns out confirmed (and not “reporting the controversy” like Vox did or just aggregating it like a lot of other places did) then I will eat my fucking hat. I will go to confession and do my penance (even though I haven’t believed in decades) for the sin of doubting this woman in public.

For now, it seems like reporters whose history is mostly of repeating the Russia line from the left trying to pump up a murkily-reported story that should be easy to confirm to the standards of credible accusations but hasn’t been for weeks.

[FireNexus]

https://commondreams.org/views/2020/04/ ... truth-rape

This guy believes the story. Cool. Noticed how it nowhere says that he was able to reach her brother and friend who were used for contemporary corroboration?

Yeah. Nobody else has been able to do that so far. I’m not asking for due process. I’m asking for the bare minimum bar cleared by everyone who has been treated seriously as an accuser in the past several years. Fuck, I’m practically begging because it would hopefully let us replace Joe Biden at top of ticket.

But it’s not out there.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be honest I'm skeptical the DNC would dump him even if there were more allegations. His supporters would cry foul because he won the most votes, the DNC would be scarred of Bernie putting himself forward as the obvious alternative, and dropping Biden would mean admitting they made a mistake.

The only hope would be for Biden to drop out himself, for the good of the party. But Biden isn't under nearly enough pressure to feel compelled to fall on his own sword, even if he had the character to do such a thing, which I doubt.

[FireNexus]

The DNC wouldn’t be admitting shit. Biden won. If Biden is to drop out, though, it’ll be after he names a running mate. Bernie will be hard pressed to get named instead of the running mate, whoever she ends up being.

Regardless, I trust this story about as much as if it were reported by a Fox contributor and confirmed by RT. Which is to say, I’ll believe it if somebody credible confirm the reporting, but I take it as tabloid garbage until they do.

[The Romulan Republic]

The story is credible. It could be false, conceivably, but there are a bunch of other allegations too, if not of the same severity. Dismissing any of them as "tabloid garbage" shows contempt for sexual assault survivors.

Obviously this is all pretty speculative with regard to if Biden dropped out. But as I said above, given that there are several reasons why his VP is particularly likely to have to step in for him at some point, this is the most important choice he is likely to make. And I will watch who he picks for VP (and cabinet) very closely.

[FireNexus]

The story is credible. It could be false, conceivably, but there are a bunch of other allegations too, if not of the same severity. Dismissing any of them as "tabloid garbage" shows contempt for sexual assault survivors.

Yet, I somehow doubt that you would be consistent on this point if the story were the same but reported by two right wing reporters who’ve engaged in the same sort of Russia denial. You’d see it my way because it would be clearer to you that the reporters weren’t ”on your team”.

It’s not credible because it has been reported by people without credibility, and their reporting has not been confirmed by anyone else, with specific reporting on the failure to confirm. I’ve seen you wax polemic about right-wing bullshit enough to know that you understand how partisan hacks can manipulate news cycles under a veneer of respectability with shoddy reporting, but I also know that you see yourself as a sophisticated news consumer who could never fall prey to such bad faith reporting.

[FireNexus]

But I’m done giving any more air to this outside of a mea culpa if or when credible reporters confirm it or break additional accusations.

[The Romulan Republic]

The story is credible. It could be false, conceivably, but there are a bunch of other allegations too, if not of the same severity. Dismissing any of them as "tabloid garbage" shows contempt for sexual assault survivors.

Yet, I somehow doubt that you would be consistent on this point if the story were the same but reported by two right wing reporters who’ve engaged in the same sort of Russia denial. You’d see it my way because it would be clearer to you that the reporters weren’t ”on your team”.

Don't make those assumptions about what I'd do. You don't know that and you don't have the right.

I might be skeptical of a specific case sourced only from the far Right, because the far Right has a proven history of making up shit like this, but I wouldn't dismiss the pattern of troubling behaviour by Biden from multiple sources. There have been cases where Reich-wing operatives made rape allegations that were demonstrated to be fraudulent (like the false claim against Mueller), and I do dismiss those, but that isn't the case here. Nobody has demonstrated that Tara Reade's claim is fraudulent or bought by political operatives, unlikely the example I mentioned above, which was swiftly proven to be so.

You think Biden's people haven't dug into Reade's story for evidence that she's lying/bought? Of course they have. They clearly haven't found any. The best they can do is "well she said some nice things about Putin once (which she now recants), and she supports Bernie".

It’s not credible because it has been reported by people without credibility, and their reporting has not been confirmed by anyone else, with specific reporting on the failure to confirm. I’ve seen you wax polemic about right-wing bullshit enough to know that you understand how partisan hacks can manipulate news cycles under a veneer of respectability with shoddy reporting, but I also know that you see yourself as a sophisticated news consumer who could never fall prey to such bad faith reporting.

And again, you make assumptions and assertions about me to try to mock and ridicule my character, in order to deflect by ad hominem from your own rape apologism and victim-blaming. Fuck you.

Just going to remind you that this whole situation could have been averted if Bernie were the nominee.

[muse]

Yet, I somehow doubt that you would be consistent on this point if the story were the same but reported by two right wing reporters who’ve engaged in the same sort of Russia denial. You’d see it my way because it would be clearer to you that the reporters weren’t ”on your team”.

Don't make those assumptions about what I'd do. You don't know that and you don't have the right.

Oh really?
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 9#p4016369