SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[Gandalf]

Trump was enough of a monster that it’s no excuse. Trump was far worse than a mainstream politician. When the options are flawed politician and Satan you go with flawed politician

So I have no excuse for not voting?

Do I need to spell this out?

A lot of people in 2016 downplayed how dangerous Trump was, equated him to other "mainstream" politicians, or otherwise normalized him. This made him seem like a more acceptable option, as opposed to the reality which is that we were electing a Klan-endorsed mob boss with aspirations to be Fuhrer Trump.

Its maybe somewhat understandable that someone could think that in 2016, if they weren't paying attention. It isn't now.

Aside from the excellent content Ziggy Stardust posted, there's not too much I can add. Trump is the next step from Bush II, and arguably the main difference is that Trump doesn't have (or need?) the same pseudo intellectual vanguard that other horrible administrations had. To deny the continuity rehabilitates them, and leads to things like GWB now being seen as likeable.

[Darth Yan]

You have no excuse for dismissing Trump and pretending it's more of the same. Bush was a bad president but trump's a whole other league of asshole. He's bush taken to infinitely more horrible places

[Gandalf]

You have no excuse for dismissing Trump and pretending it's more of the same. Bush was a bad president but trump's a whole other league of asshole. He's bush taken to infinitely more horrible places

Now that you've seemingly stopped railing against me for not voting, do you acknowledge the continuity from Bush to Trump?

[Knife]

I can think of three reasons:

1. One is a Trumper/white supremacist. I don't think that's the case with Knife.

2. One is an accelerationist, and actively wants civil unrest in the believe that it will lead to the breakdown of the current system and the victory of (insert ideology here).

3. One is a troll.

Man you do a couple things off line for a few days and get this.

Meh, chalk me up with 2. Education is the key to turning rednecks into humans again, but that's a generational goal. Really at this point, I've relegated Trumpers, and to a lesser extent, GOPers, to that. They are deplorable. If we work hard, we can save their kids. But fuck those that vote Trump, they are not worth saving.

[Knife]

Why revel in it?

Specifically, they'd be proven cowards. They've built up this... strawman of what the other side is, and it's hilarious when they spell it out. But the 'other side' isn't that. When these loud mouth assholes discover that, it's going to be better than billionaire tears.

[Knife]

You have no excuse for dismissing Trump and pretending it's more of the same. Bush was a bad president but trump's a whole other league of asshole. He's bush taken to infinitely more horrible places

Now that you've seemingly stopped railing against me for not voting, do you acknowledge the continuity from Bush to Trump?

No. Truly, if we accept your proposition, then one million is the same as a billion. Bush to Trump was an escalation of the same problem, but exponentially so, not the same. Sure, it's the same problem but taken to the nth degree.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can think of three reasons:

1. One is a Trumper/white supremacist. I don't think that's the case with Knife.

2. One is an accelerationist, and actively wants civil unrest in the believe that it will lead to the breakdown of the current system and the victory of (insert ideology here).

3. One is a troll.

Man you do a couple things off line for a few days and get this.

Meh, chalk me up with 2. Education is the key to turning rednecks into humans again, but that's a generational goal. Really at this point, I've relegated Trumpers, and to a lesser extent, GOPers, to that. They are deplorable. If we work hard, we can save their kids. But fuck those that vote Trump, they are not worth saving.

Unfortunately, that has some fairly apocalyptic implications when dealing with 40+% of the American electorate.

I'm pretty much past the point of wanting to compromise, but at some point, even if its after we defeat their attempt at an uprising, we're going to have to try to rehabilitate some of these people. You can't just write off a demographic numbering in the tens of millions. Not in a democracy, or in any sane society.

[Ralin]

I imagine that if the hardcore Trump supporters are on the losing end of a series of uprisings, riots and armed conflicts they'll have less money and organization to throw into future elections. Especially if a significant chunk of them have been disenfranchised for various reasons such as being felons.

[loomer]

Mostly by going “he’s no different than Hillary so I won’t vote.” A lot of people did that and given how close the victory was it made a difference

You honestly think trumps no different than any other asshole when he’s worse

It does seem slightly unreasonable to sledge nearly the entire population of the country for not voting for Hillary, given the circumstances.

Trump was enough of a monster that it’s no excuse. Trump was far worse than a mainstream politician. When the options are flawed politician and Satan you go with flawed politician

I suppose it is true that millions of people in this country, myself and Gandalf included, didn't vote for Hillary but didn't vote for Trump either in the 2016 US Presidential Election. Are you suggesting we specifically should have voted for Hillary?

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't play dense. Its not about votes. Its about contributing to a culture which normalizes Trump's actions.

In other news, Biden's VP shortlist appears to be taking shape:

https://nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elect ... y-n1212481

A growing number of contenders to be Joe Biden’s vice presidential nominee indicated Thursday that they’ve advanced to a round of intense vetting, suggesting that a shortlist for the slot is taking shape.

Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., has formally begun interviewing with the Biden campaign for the vice presidential nomination and that the vetting process is underway, a source with direct knowledge told NBC News Thursday.

“We’re definitely on a list,” the source said.

Demings, D-Fla., in an interview with SiriusXM’s “The Dean Obeidallah Show,” said Wednesday night she was on “the shortlist” to be Biden’s vice presidential nominee, saying that she’d accept the job if offered.

“If Vice President Biden asked me to serve along with him, I would be honored to do just that,” she said.

Demings has represented an Orlando-area district — a key territory in the critical battleground state of Florida — since 2017. Earlier in her career, she was the police chief of Orlando. She also served as a House manager during the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, CBS News reported that Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., was asked by the Biden campaign to undergo a formal vetting for consideration for the veep slot.

Klobuchar ran for the Democratic presidential nomination but dropped out in March to endorse Biden.

Earlier Thursday, NBC News reported that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., had declined a request from Biden’s presidential campaign to be vetted as a potential running mate.

The Biden team's interest in Shaheen was first reported by Manchester, N.H., ABC affiliate WMUR, which also reported that Maggie Hassan, the state’s other Democratic senator, has agreed to be vetted by the Biden campaign for consideration for the vice presidential nomination.

Earlier this week, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer disclosed that she has been in touch with Biden’s team. During a "Today" interview Tuesday she said, “it was just an opening conversation.”

If elected, Biden, 77, would be the oldest-ever president-elect, which has put an intense focus on his pick for vice president. Biden has spoken often of seeing himself as a transitional presidential, leading many politics-watchers to believe that his running mate could eventually be the leader of the Democratic Party and, if Biden won in 2020, the likely Democratic nominee in 2024.

Biden has said he expects the vetting process to take five to eight weeks, which would point to an announcement occurring no sooner than July.

“They're now in the process of thoroughly examining a group of women, all of whom are capable in my view of being president. And there's about a dozen of them,” Biden said during a virtual fundraiser last week.

Biden had previously vowed to choose a woman as his running mate.

In March, She the People, an influential group of women of color, released an internal poll showing that Stacey Abrams, the former minority leader of the Georgia state House, and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., were the leading Democratic vice presidential picks among their members.

Other women who have been frequently mentioned by politicians, strategists and voters include Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

[loomer]

Don't play dense. Its not about votes. Its about contributing to a culture which normalizes Trump's actions.

You'll have to excuse me, but having a former centre-leftist who was still condemning anti-fascist violence just last year try and tell me that people with a much longer history of continued opposition to corruption, statism, and general neo-liberal, reactionary, and fascist shitfuckery are the ones normalizing Trump is incredibly funny to me. The reality is that Trump is not an exceptional evil in the Western political landscape, but rather just a particularly visibly abhorrent example of the kind of political deterioration and explosion of predatory reactionary populism that those of us on the actual left have been warning of for decades.

The attempt to paint him as some kind of 'outside' problem to Western politics is far more dangerous than the alternative, which is recognizing him as just one more cancerous outgrowth of the same underlying problems. The former assumes that Trump is the disease, not the symptom - the latter realizes that without systemic reform, getting rid of Trump at best just forces the disease back beneath the surface to fester again until it resurfaces. What you call 'normalizing' Trump is nothing more and nothing less than being unwilling to buy into the party line that actually, no, American democracy is functional and healthy most of the time.

[Darth Yan]

It does seem slightly unreasonable to sledge nearly the entire population of the country for not voting for Hillary, given the circumstances.

Trump was enough of a monster that it’s no excuse. Trump was far worse than a mainstream politician. When the options are flawed politician and Satan you go with flawed politician

I suppose it is true that millions of people in this country, myself and Gandalf included, didn't vote for Hillary but didn't vote for Trump either in the 2016 US Presidential Election. Are you suggesting we specifically should have voted for Hillary?

If you could have yes. It’s that simple.

Don't play dense. Its not about votes. Its about contributing to a culture which normalizes Trump's actions.

You'll have to excuse me, but having a former centre-leftist who was still condemning anti-fascist violence just last year try and tell me that people with a much longer history of continued opposition to corruption, statism, and general neo-liberal, reactionary, and fascist shitfuckery are the ones normalizing Trump is incredibly funny to me. The reality is that Trump is not an exceptional evil in the Western political landscape, but rather just a particularly visibly abhorrent example of the kind of political deterioration and explosion of predatory reactionary populism that those of us on the actual left have been warning of for decades.

The attempt to paint him as some kind of 'outside' problem to Western politics is far more dangerous than the alternative, which is recognizing him as just one more cancerous outgrowth of the same underlying problems. The former assumes that Trump is the disease, not the symptom - the latter realizes that without systemic reform, getting rid of Trump at best just forces the disease back beneath the surface to fester again until it resurfaces. What you call 'normalizing' Trump is nothing more and nothing less than being unwilling to buy into the party line that actually, no, American democracy is functional and healthy most of the time.

Trump’s a manifestation of symptoms but he’s also a whole nother league. There’s this tendency to say that trumps as bad as Hillary. For all her legion of flaws she’s nowhere close. Same with Joe. Idiot though he is he’s nowhere near Trump’s league

[loomer]

Trump was enough of a monster that it’s no excuse. Trump was far worse than a mainstream politician. When the options are flawed politician and Satan you go with flawed politician

I suppose it is true that millions of people in this country, myself and Gandalf included, didn't vote for Hillary but didn't vote for Trump either in the 2016 US Presidential Election. Are you suggesting we specifically should have voted for Hillary?

If you could have yes. It’s that simple. Trump’s a manifestation of symptoms but he’s also a whole nother league

'If you could have' is certainly doing some heavy lifting. What I'm getting at is that blaming Gandalf for not voting is fundamentally silly because, again, millions of people in this country didn't because they can't. Have you figured out why it's a silly thing to yell at Gandalf about under the given circumstances yet?

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't play dense. Its not about votes. Its about contributing to a culture which normalizes Trump's actions.

You'll have to excuse me, but having a former centre-leftist who was still condemning anti-fascist violence just last year try and tell me that people with a much longer history of continued opposition to corruption, statism, and general neo-liberal, reactionary, and fascist shitfuckery are the ones normalizing Trump is incredibly funny to me. The reality is that Trump is not an exceptional evil in the Western political landscape, but rather just a particularly visibly abhorrent example of the kind of political deterioration and explosion of predatory reactionary populism that those of us on the actual left have been warning of for decades.

So we're going for yet another round of "smear TRR's character to distract from the actual topic". Because of course we fucking are.

First of all, I haven't been a Centrist by the standards of anyone but the most fringe extremists for a very long time. Not champing at the bit to spill blood does not equal being a Centrist.

Secondly, my position on violence is more or less what it has been for years: that it may sometimes be necessary to defend oneself or others, but that it must be used only as a last resort, not preemptively, for revenge, as a means of imposing an ideology, or because some frustrated and angry people want to See It All Burn. The only thing that's changed is that we've inched closer to the line where it becomes necessary.

But yeah, tell me how I'm not a real leftist/a fascist collaborator because I'm not eager to see the streets run red with the blood of innocents (oh, sorry, did you think only the Bad Men would die in your Glorious Revolution, or are the poor and marginalized who would inevitably be the bulk of the casualties simply Acceptable Losses for the Greater Good?).

The attempt to paint him as some kind of 'outside' problem to Western politics is far more dangerous than the alternative, which is recognizing him as just one more cancerous outgrowth of the same underlying problems. The former assumes that Trump is the disease, not the symptom - the latter realizes that without systemic reform, getting rid of Trump at best just forces the disease back beneath the surface to fester again until it resurfaces. What you call 'normalizing' Trump is nothing more and nothing less than being unwilling to buy into the party line that actually, no, American democracy is functional and healthy most of the time.

Third option: Trump is an outgrowth of existing systemic problems that will still have to be confronted once he is gone, but he represents a dramatic escalation of those tendencies, and pretending he is no different than the norm numbs people to the urgency of the crisis, and wastes the chance to use the blatant tyranny of Trump to wake people up to the systemic problems that created him.

Oh, wait, that position involves actual nuance, and as we all know, that makes me Not A Real Leftist.

You know what I think? I think people like you sent people like me to the gulags and the firing squads and the guilotine for being Traitors to the Revolution because we didn't have a hard enough murder boner, and you probably will again if you get the chance. So forgive me if I give your opinion little more weight than the fascists'.

[loomer]

Don't play dense. Its not about votes. Its about contributing to a culture which normalizes Trump's actions.

You'll have to excuse me, but having a former centre-leftist who was still condemning anti-fascist violence just last year try and tell me that people with a much longer history of continued opposition to corruption, statism, and general neo-liberal, reactionary, and fascist shitfuckery are the ones normalizing Trump is incredibly funny to me. The reality is that Trump is not an exceptional evil in the Western political landscape, but rather just a particularly visibly abhorrent example of the kind of political deterioration and explosion of predatory reactionary populism that those of us on the actual left have been warning of for decades.

So we're going for yet another round of "smear TRR's character to distract from the actual topic". Because of course we fucking are.

It ain't a smear if it's true, and I think you'll find it actually is the topic you decided to raise. Namely, former center-leftists like you declaring that actual leftists are normalizing Trump. It's weird that you think that calling you a former centre-leftist is a smear, though!

First of all, I haven't been a Centrist by the standards of anyone but the most fringe extremists for a very long time. Not champing at the bit to spill blood does not equal being a Centrist.

You were a centrist by any actual leftist model, dude. Hate to break it to ya. 'Progressive left' in the American context really just means 'liberal, but with some soul left', since it doesn't view the underlying liberal model of organization as the problem. I call you a former centre-leftist because you're at least willing to move slightly beyond a wholehearted embrace of liberalism and capitalism, but in most respects, you actually still fit pretty squarely in the center. Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong with progressive leftists, even if I think they're propping up a system inherently inimical to their goals, because at least the heart's in the right place - but the heart being in the right place does not an actual leftist make.

Secondly, my position on violence is more or less what it has been for years: that it may sometimes be necessary to defend oneself or others, but that it must be used only as a last resort, not preemptively, for revenge, as a means of imposing an ideology, or because some frustrated and angry people want to See It All Burn. The only thing that's changed is that we've inched closer to the line where it becomes necessary.

The line was crossed years ago when the fascists started expanding and returning to the mainstream again. Fascism as an ideology is one of such inherent violence that renders pre-emptive self-defence morally permissible.

But yeah, tell me how I'm not a real leftist/a fascist collaborator because I'm not eager to see the streets run red with the blood of innocents (oh, sorry, did you think only the Bad Men would die in your Glorious Revolution, or are the poor and marginalized who would inevitably be the bulk of the casualties simply Acceptable Losses for the Greater Good?).

You're a progressive leftist, TRR, which means you're still aligned with centrism because you don't view liberalism and capitalism as the problems in and of themselves, which is, you know, kinda the divergence point for actual leftists. But speaking of smears, which you so gleefully invoked, perhaps you can point me to where I said anything about staging a glorious revolution as a preferable option? If you wish to characterize me as eager to see blood run in the streets, I certainly hope you can back that up. I also wonder if you can show me where I've called you a fascist collaborator - or do you feel that if you aren't a true leftist, you must necessarily be a collaborator, and so by declaring you a former centre-leftist, I have thus dubbed you a fascist collaborator? (In which case, you're more than welcome to jump ship and actually join us.)

The attempt to paint him as some kind of 'outside' problem to Western politics is far more dangerous than the alternative, which is recognizing him as just one more cancerous outgrowth of the same underlying problems. The former assumes that Trump is the disease, not the symptom - the latter realizes that without systemic reform, getting rid of Trump at best just forces the disease back beneath the surface to fester again until it resurfaces. What you call 'normalizing' Trump is nothing more and nothing less than being unwilling to buy into the party line that actually, no, American democracy is functional and healthy most of the time.

Third option: Trump is an outgrowth of existing systemic problems that will still have to be confronted once he is gone, but he represents a dramatic escalation of those tendencies, and pretending he is no different than the norm numbs people to the urgency of the crisis, and wastes the chance to use the blatant tyranny of Trump to wake people up to the systemic problems that created him.

Except Trump really isn't a dramatic escalation of those tendencies, but rather, the result of a prior escalation - one that rapidly unfolded during the Bush and Obama years. That's what you don't seem to grasp: Trump didn't just 'happen' by surprise (even though yes, it blindsided even most of us on the left because we got complacent) but was a product of the erosion of democratic norms and values beginning in the early late 70s/early 80s, escalating in the early 2000s, and reaching feverish pitch during the Obama years, which allowed fascism to openly re-enter the political mainstream. That's why those of us pointing to the antecedents are so frustrated - from our perspective, Trump is an outcome of processes long in the making, and viewing him as any kind of sudden exceptional evil both gives him too much credit and gives the false hope that dealing with him in isolation could have any meaningful impact on the underlying problem.

Further, if you want to 'use the blatant tyranny of Trump to wake people up to the systemic problems', you need to actually discuss those systemic problems. Pointing to the history of poisonous leadership and the perversion of democracy by various factions in the West is actually how you do that - it's not normalizing Trump, but pointing to the underlying problems that allowed the system to fester until the point that a no longer deniable abhorrent failure of democracy erupted.

Oh, wait, that position involves actual nuance, and as we all know, that makes me Not A Real Leftist.

Or, and this just might be possible, we don't think your 'nuanced' position is actually all that nuanced and that it covers a generalized liberal tendency that you aren't able to perceive. But you're probably right, and anarchists just hate nuance. I mean, I know that's why I read Habermas and Agamben, because I hate nuance.

You know what I think? I think people like you sent people like me to the gulags and the firing squads and the guilotine for being Traitors to the Revolution because we didn't have a hard enough murder boner, and you probably will again if you get the chance. So forgive me if I give your opinion little more weight than the fascists'.

Fun fact: It's actually us masons and anarchists who were the ones sent to the gulags and firing squads and guillotines as 'traitors to the revolution' far more frequently than any centre-leftist or socdem like you. We historically have some of the worst odds of surviving any revolution, since anarchists represent a fundamental threat to any and all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, whether openly permanent or 'temporarily necessary', in a way that liberals and socialists don't. Here's another fun fact for you: I'm a pretty strict pacifist, even while I recognize the validity of anti-fascist violence and the possible existence of the Just War.

So no, TRR. I don't think it's people like me who send people like you to the Gulags. I think it's people like you who send people like me, because the gulag, the firing squad, and the guillotine are fundamentally incompatible with my political philosophy and personal morality on every level as instruments of statist violence and terror. If it ever comes to it, I'm more likely to help you hide and die for you than hand you over.

But hey. I'm a far leftist, so I must be thirsty for your blood, right?

What was that about nuance again?

[Ralin]

Scary thought, unrelated to any ongoing conversations. If Biden does manage to win Trump will be eligible to run again in four years. And I can totally picture him sulking off to Mar-A-Lago, spending the next few years riling his base up and taunting Biden, then giving it another go.

And odds seem pretty good President Biden would give him a lot of ammunition.

Not saying this is a very likely scenario. But you might have noticed, there's been a lot of that going on for the past few years.

[loomer]

Scary thought, unrelated to any ongoing conversations. If Biden does manage to win Trump will be eligible to run again in four years. And I can totally picture him sulking off to Mar-A-Lago, spending the next few years riling his base up and taunting Biden, then giving it another go.

And odds seem pretty good President Biden would give him a lot of ammunition.

Not saying this is a very likely scenario. But you might have noticed, there's been a lot of that going on for the past few years.

Hopefully he won't last long enough to capitalize and will instead split the base before dying, if that does occur.

[Mr Bean]

Scary thought, unrelated to any ongoing conversations. If Biden does manage to win Trump will be eligible to run again in four years. And I can totally picture him sulking off to Mar-A-Lago, spending the next few years riling his base up and taunting Biden, then giving it another go.

And odds seem pretty good President Biden would give him a lot of ammunition.

Not saying this is a very likely scenario. But you might have noticed, there's been a lot of that going on for the past few years.

Hopefully he won't last long enough to capitalize and will instead split the base before dying, if that does occur.

Considering the mental decline from 2015/2016 debate Trump who was a huckster to current day 2020 not sure where he is Trump.. I'm not sure a 78 year old 2024 Trump would have it mentally together to be on camera anymore.

Never mind the criminal prosecutions in the mean time. When the turn happens on Trump it's going to be fast. The instant he loses govermental power it's going to become 2008 GW Bush all over again except 5x worse.

[Ralin]

Considering the mental decline from 2015/2016 debate Trump who was a huckster to current day 2020 not sure where he is Trump.. I'm not sure a 78 year old 2024 Trump would have it mentally together to be on camera anymore.

A year long vacation can do wonders for your mental health, I'm just saying. Especially when you have a multi-millionaire's amount of ways to relax.

[Mr Bean]

Considering the mental decline from 2015/2016 debate Trump who was a huckster to current day 2020 not sure where he is Trump.. I'm not sure a 78 year old 2024 Trump would have it mentally together to be on camera anymore.

A year long vacation can do wonders for your mental health, I'm just saying. Especially when you have a multi-millionaire's amount of ways to relax.

Vacations don't cure Dementia and again once he's out of power he loses the ability to obstruct so things like his taxes and his financial dealings come instantly to light. Neither of which your going to get a nice restful time on a tropical private island.

[FireNexus]

In “This is really not surprising at all” news, the Credible Allegation of Sexual Assault Against Biden (TM) apparently has come from someone whose work as an expert witness may be invalidated due to...

Wait for it...

Serious questions about her credibility stemming from her possibly lying under oath about her credentials.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/2 ... ony-274460

Defense lawyers look to reopen cases where Tara Reade testified as an expert

05/21/2020 11:55 PM EDT
Tara Reade
Under the name Alexandra McCabe, Tara Reade has for years testified for the prosecution as an expert in domestic violence cases.

But a number of California defense attorneys are considering challenging the convictions of their clients amid questions about whether Reade misrepresented her credentials under oath.

Reade, the former Joe Biden staffer who recently accused him of sexually assaulting her in 1993, stated she had an undergraduate degree that her college says she never earned and appears to have exaggerated her role in Biden’s office, according to trial transcripts in two court cases reviewed by POLITICO.

Six cases involving Reade’s testimony are already under review by the Sixth District Appellate Program, Executive Director Patrick McKenna told POLITICO Thursday. The state-funded office oversees appointed defense counsel in appellate cases covering four California counties, including Monterey County, where the prosecution often tapped Reade as an expert witness.

The review will determine whether the attorneys can petition a judge to review their clients’ conviction, and potentially order a new trial.

“I have at least six cases where she testified and I have lists pending from various attorney groups where she testified as a violence expert. I expect that list will expand significantly,” said McKenna. “We’re trying to get the lists together. We’re aware of Ms. Reade, we’re in the mode of trying to review the transcripts to see if she misrepresented herself in court.”

He said the calls for a review came as news reports raised questions about her background and detailed her credentials, including the fact that she did not complete an undergraduate degree.

“Last week, I was informed she testified as an expert. Last week I was also informed she lied about her credentials. I didn’t connect the dots on the significance of those two things until yesterday when I was contacted by an attorney,” McKenna said.

The concerns about Reade’s testimony come after she leveled sexual assault charges against Biden in March. In 2019, Reade at first alleged sexual harassment, but she has since explained that she wasn’t yet ready to tell the full story — an experience Reade and her attorney argue is common with victims of abuse.

Reade has written and talked extensively about her own experience as a victim of domestic violence. In 1996, a judge in San Luis Obispo Superior Court authorized a temporary restraining order against Reade’s then-husband. Her former husband has denied her claims.

An attorney for Jennifer Vasquez, a woman convicted of attempted murder, said he is currently reviewing options for his client in the wake of recent revelations about Reade.

In that December 2018 case, Reade gave an account of her educational background that conflicts with the account of university officials. When asked to detail her credentials as an expert in domestic violence in the case, Reade testified that she had a law degree from Seattle University and graduated from Antioch University in Seattle with a bachelor’s degree.

Karen Hamilton, a spokeswoman for Antioch University, said in a statement that Reade did not graduate and was never a faculty member. Reade attended Antioch for three academic quarters, in 2000 and part of 2001, the university said.

Reade declined to comment for this story and instead texted a screenshot from a previously published article where she claimed she obtained an undergraduate degree under a special arrangement with a former chancellor of the university, Toni Murdock. CNN first reported on questions regarding Reade’s educational background.

However, university officials conferred with Murdock, an Antioch official told POLITICO, and confirmed that no special arrangement existed.

Seattle University School of Law confirmed that Reade graduated from there in 2004. According to a 2009 article in the law school’s alumni magazine, Reade entered law school under an alternative admission program.

In a follow-up question about whether students in that program can be admitted without a bachelor’s degree, a spokesman pointed to current requirements, which require an undergraduate degree.

“Our current admission requirements are publicly posted on the Seattle University School of Law website, which apply to all admitted students,” David Sandler said. “As in the past, they are consistent with American Bar Association standards for law schools. Federal privacy regulations prevent us from sharing additional information about the educational records of former students.”

Reade also appears to have embellished her role in Biden’s office. Reade served in his Senate office from December 1992 to July 1993 as a staff assistant, a relatively junior position. Reade has said she managed interns for a time. But when queried about her job experience at the trial, Reade referred to herself as a legislative assistant — a more senior job classification that conveyed more responsibility — in his office, according to the transcript.

“I worked with domestic violence prevention for over 20-some years in different capacities. I started working for US Senator Joseph Biden. I was a legislative assistant. He worked on the Violence Against Women Act, the federal act,” Reade testified.

She was later asked if her degree from Antioch University was in political science.

“Liberal arts, yeah,” Reade responded.

“But your resume says liberal,” the attorney followed up.

“Yeah. The focus was political science. I worked for Leon Panetta and Joe Biden and then moved on to King County prosecutor's office,” she said.

In response to a question from the lawyer about whether she was being compensated, Reade said she was paid a stipend and provided with a hotel room.

Vasquez’s attorney, Scott Erdbacher — who directed questioning and whose objection to her as an expert witness was overruled by the judge overseeing the case — said he is revisiting the issue.

“We’re just looking at it to see if there is a reason to reopen it,” Erdbacher told POLITICO. “ I’m sure that anybody who had her on a case will be looking into it very closely. Her testimony in cases, especially if her credibility is a problem, those are all things we would have asked her at trial that would have influenced the outcome.”

Prior to her testimony in the Vasquez case, defense attorneys were given Reade’s resume, a copy of which was provided to POLITICO.

The resume cites a BA from Antioch, as well as separate work for the university.

“Ongoing Online Visiting Professor since 2007 for various Student BA packet reviews: Review the final papers with students via phone and email; provide guidance for final BA,” reads one line from her resume.

A university official confirmed that Reade was not a faculty member, though she did several hours of administrative work total as an independent contractor over 2008, 2009, 2010.

Reade testified in at least two cases for the Monterey County district attorney’s office as recently as last year. In a January 2019 press release, the prosecutor’s office specifically touted Reade’s testimony as pivotal to the conviction.

“Tara McCabe, a domestic violence expert, provided critical testimony which aided the jury’s understanding as to why victims of domestic violence recant, minimize, and frequently stay in abusive relationships,” the office said.

The prosecutor’s office did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Reade’s attorney.

Reade has long described herself as a domestic violence survivor and victims’ advocate, citing past work with domestic violence survivors, including as a volunteer for a time in King County, Washington. A spokeswoman with the King County prosecutor’s office confirmed that someone named Alexandra McCabe was employed as a victim advocate from Aug. 1999 through October 2000.

So, she has changed her story repeatedly. Her corroborating witnesses have changed their stories to match hers. One of the witnesses said outright that they did not remember being told a former US Senator and Vice President sexually assaulted their friend until the friend reminded them of it. Multiple people have come forward with tales of her being a career grifter with constant money problems. Her firing from the Biden office coincides with her being charged for check fraud. She has written bizarre love letters to Vladimir Putin and haphazardly attempted to delete them to avoid scrutiny.

And, finally, she appears to have possibly lied not only on the stand about her credentials, but defrauded a law school by convincing them to admit her without a degree.

None of those things separately or even taken together necessarily disprove that her claim is true, but there has to be a point at which a spade is called a spade and an unfalsifiable claim made by someone with such low credibility is not taken seriously. Certainly I think it’s unfair to continue claiming that Biden is inarguably a rapist given the current absence of even slightly similar claims.

My problem with Reade all along was that she came through outlets that lack credibility. Credible outlets reported that her claims were unable to be vetted appropriately for over a year. And now it turns out that she is not one with a history of honesty, apparently up to and including outright fraud and perjury. So...

[Gandalf]

Specifically, they'd be proven cowards. They've built up this... strawman of what the other side is, and it's hilarious when they spell it out. But the 'other side' isn't that. When these loud mouth assholes discover that, it's going to be better than billionaire tears.

Like at Charlottesville? I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here.

No. Truly, if we accept your proposition, then one million is the same as a billion. Bush to Trump was an escalation of the same problem, but exponentially so, not the same. Sure, it's the same problem but taken to the nth degree.

Trump is standing on Bush's shoulders in that regard. Bush showed (with Obama's help) that one could invade a country, fuck it up massively, creating an Islamic State shaped vacuum, then walk free to enjoy the speaking gig circuit and hang out with Ellen Degeneres. Where Bush flounted international and domestic laws, Trump seems more focused inwards.

[Straha]

Except Trump really isn't a dramatic escalation of those tendencies, but rather, the result of a prior escalation - one that rapidly unfolded during the Bush and Obama years. That's what you don't seem to grasp: Trump didn't just 'happen' by surprise (even though yes, it blindsided even most of us on the left because we got complacent) but was a product of the erosion of democratic norms and values beginning in the early late 70s/early 80s, escalating in the early 2000s, and reaching feverish pitch during the Obama years, which allowed fascism to openly re-enter the political mainstream. That's why those of us pointing to the antecedents are so frustrated - from our perspective, Trump is an outcome of processes long in the making, and viewing him as any kind of sudden exceptional evil both gives him too much credit and gives the false hope that dealing with him in isolation could have any meaningful impact on the underlying problem.

Further, if you want to 'use the blatant tyranny of Trump to wake people up to the systemic problems', you need to actually discuss those systemic problems. Pointing to the history of poisonous leadership and the perversion of democracy by various factions in the West is actually how you do that - it's not normalizing Trump, but pointing to the underlying problems that allowed the system to fester until the point that a no longer deniable abhorrent failure of democracy erupted.

Hey, Loomer, I seem to remember that there was an entire thread on this not too long ago (at least in terms of the board). Do you remember that, or am I losing my mind?

Or, and this just might be possible, we don't think your 'nuanced' position is actually all that nuanced and that it covers a generalized liberal tendency that you aren't able to perceive. But you're probably right, and anarchists just hate nuance. I mean, I know that's why I read Habermas and Agamben, because I hate nuance.

I pity the person who reads Habermas without needing to.

[loomer]

Except Trump really isn't a dramatic escalation of those tendencies, but rather, the result of a prior escalation - one that rapidly unfolded during the Bush and Obama years. That's what you don't seem to grasp: Trump didn't just 'happen' by surprise (even though yes, it blindsided even most of us on the left because we got complacent) but was a product of the erosion of democratic norms and values beginning in the early late 70s/early 80s, escalating in the early 2000s, and reaching feverish pitch during the Obama years, which allowed fascism to openly re-enter the political mainstream. That's why those of us pointing to the antecedents are so frustrated - from our perspective, Trump is an outcome of processes long in the making, and viewing him as any kind of sudden exceptional evil both gives him too much credit and gives the false hope that dealing with him in isolation could have any meaningful impact on the underlying problem.

Further, if you want to 'use the blatant tyranny of Trump to wake people up to the systemic problems', you need to actually discuss those systemic problems. Pointing to the history of poisonous leadership and the perversion of democracy by various factions in the West is actually how you do that - it's not normalizing Trump, but pointing to the underlying problems that allowed the system to fester until the point that a no longer deniable abhorrent failure of democracy erupted.

Hey, Loomer, I seem to remember that there was an entire thread on this not too long ago (at least in terms of the board). Do you remember that, or am I losing my mind?

It does feel familiar, but that could just be because the point has been re-litigated in here so often. It's hard to keep up with so many spats over whether he's a unique evil or just the latest expression of the flaws in American democracy.

Or, and this just might be possible, we don't think your 'nuanced' position is actually all that nuanced and that it covers a generalized liberal tendency that you aren't able to perceive. But you're probably right, and anarchists just hate nuance. I mean, I know that's why I read Habermas and Agamben, because I hate nuance.

I pity the person who reads Habermas without needing to.

He's not that bad, really. Well, he is, but I'm clearly an intellectual masochist because my stupid ass decided that trying to synthesize Habermas, Kelsen, Agamben, Luhmann, Derrida, the bloody 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, and anarchist theorists into a cohesive discourse theory for a transitional legal framework of the 21st century was worth dedicating my life to.

I... make poor life choices.

[The Romulan Republic]

Scary thought, unrelated to any ongoing conversations. If Biden does manage to win Trump will be eligible to run again in four years. And I can totally picture him sulking off to Mar-A-Lago, spending the next few years riling his base up and taunting Biden, then giving it another go.

And odds seem pretty good President Biden would give him a lot of ammunition.

Not saying this is a very likely scenario. But you might have noticed, there's been a lot of that going on for the past few years.

My hope is that he'll be too buried in legal battles and felony charges.

He can try to run from his prison cell, I guess.