US Elections 2020

[blackchubby38]

I'm curious as to why these should be big problems for Biden when the same issues apply to Trump in spades.

Because how does it look when the party that became the champion of the Me Too Movement and who used a sexual assault allegation as a reason to try to block Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. Then turns around and nominates and endorses a candidate that who also has been accused of sexual assault. Especially when the media hasn't really been in a rush to talk about the story.

While in the grand scheme of things given who is currently sitting in the White House, you're right those things shouldn't be problem. But for some Democratic voters who aren't too excited about Biden in the first place, this just gives them more reason not to be thrilled with him. Then there is also the question how do Independent voters feel about him.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to how much you are willing to hold your nose as you overlook some of the candidate's past transgressions and vote for them. Whether they're proven to be real or are they just allegations. Trump supporters have shown they're willing to do just that. Will some Democrats and Independents be willing to do the same. Speaking for myself, I know I'm.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=trish;1926637
Personally, I love Jesus, pick-up trucks, country music, cheap beer and AR-15’s. Everything else is un-american.
-A pity, I was hoping you were going to say you like Tom Hanks, Miles Davis, Zinfandel and... a table tennis paddle...(!)

Has anyone been watching Cuomo give his daily briefings? They’re genius.
-Have seen some of it in the UK, but don't know much about the man, other than I think his father was once Governor? Can he be written in to the ballot at the Convention, or more precisely -is he any good at the rest of his job? I assume you don't become Governor of New York without getting your hands dirty.

Ps Today is the anniversary of that day in 1789 when George Washington was sworn in as the first elected President of the USA. I think these days that is what is known as a 'Fun Fact'. Ho ho.

[broncofan]

Sexual assault is difficult to talk about because it's a heinous crime that frequently can't be corroborated by physical evidence or testimony from a disinterested witness. And yet an accusation of sexual assault tends to be very reliable and by itself can form the basis of a criminal conviction. While it is true that false accusations are rare, they do occur. There is a difference between reflexively assuming every person accused is definitely guilty and thinking that an accusation makes them likely to be. The slogan for the Me Too was, "believe women." Yet, the only avenue for a man accused of sexually assaulting a woman to exculpate himself is to make sure people don't believe that woman.

In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats wanted his accuser to be heard. She was and he had an opportunity to respond. In doing so, he made himself sound unfit for office. His accuser, Dr. Ford Blasey, sounded credible. Brett Kavanaugh could have been replaced with a wing-nut who had not been credibly accused of sexual assault. This was not acceptable to Republicans.

Then there's the case of Donald Trump. Like Biden, he has also not had his day in court and been found guilty of sexual assault. But he has been accused by dozens of women of assaulting them. While a person who is accused by one woman of assault might not be guilty, the probability that Trump committed sexual assault is near certainty. This will certainly not go on a campaign ad for Joe Biden: I might not have, he definitely did.

But we come to the fact that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be elected President. Given that practical reality, not voting for Joe Biden because of Tara Reade's accusation doesn't seem logical to me.

[broncofan]

In doing so, he made himself sound unfit for office.

Sorry I didn't mean for "office". I meant for taking away women's reproductive rights.

[fred41]

In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats wanted his accuser to be heard. She was and he had an opportunity to respond. In doing so, he made himself sound unfit for office. His accuser, Dr. Ford Blasey, sounded credible. Brett Kavanaugh could have been replaced with a wing-nut who had not been credibly accused of sexual assault. This was not acceptable to Republicans.

I have a problem with this statement Bronc. You say he could have been replaced with a wing nut who had not been credibly accused of sexual assault...but the fact that he was “credibly” accused is always going to be in contention. “You” deemed her “credible” in that Previous sentence. By what standard though? I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve worked in the court system for a very large portion of my life. I’ve learned that, emotions aside, reliable credibility comes from corroborating testimony or other factual evidence. There was none of that at the Kavanaugh hearings. To say that it doesn’t matter because at the very least he over reacted emotionally at the hearings isn’t fair either..he has a wife and children....how would you or anyone else have reacted with an accusation almost 30 or more years ago?

Let me re-adjust this in a more honest matter - For whatever reason, you find out, that in fact, Joe Biden inserted his unwanted fingers into Tara Reade’s vagina...maybe it’s shown to you in a dream...whatever. Do you still vote Biden ...or Trump?

[fred41]

You’d vote Biden...why? Because he’d still be the best candidate in your eyes. If you have to vote between two people, one’s a criminal the other one incompetent, you vote for the criminal (in the hope he gets caught, goes to jail, his Vice gets the job...no problem)...because the alternative is to vote for someone who might really fuck things up in a really BIG way..lol ( in your view, anyway).

[broncofan]

I have a problem with this statement Bronc. You say he could have been replaced with a wing nut who had not been credibly accused of sexual assault...but the fact that he was “credibly” accused is always going to be in contention. “You” deemed her “credible” in that Previous sentence. By what standard though? I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve worked in the court system for a very large portion of my life. I’ve learned that, emotions aside, reliable credibility comes from corroborating testimony or other factual evidence. There was none of that at the Kavanaugh hearings. To say that it doesn’t matter because at the very least he over reacted emotionally at the hearings isn’t fair either..he has a wife and children....how would you or anyone else have reacted with an accusation almost 30 or more years ago?

Let me re-adjust this in a more honest matter - For whatever reason, you find out, that in fact, Joe Biden inserted his unwanted fingers into Tara Reade’s vagina...maybe it’s shown to you in a dream...whatever. Do you still vote Biden ...or Trump?

The accusations never would have made their way to court 30 years later because it wouldn't have given Kavanaugh an opportunity to defend them. If it went to court, as you say there is nothing in the way of specifics or corroboration that would have gotten a conviction. I take a liberty with the word credible because I only mean that I listened to both Ford and Kavanaugh and found her convincing and him evasive and not very forthright.

Let's assume Kavanaugh was innocent, which is the assumption we're supposed to start with. That means that when Dr. Blasey Ford came forward he really had no clue what she was talking about. It would undoubtedly be hurtful and embarrassing and a nightmare for him. I just don't know see that's how he would have/should have responded. You're right, it provoke all kinds of distress and strong emotions, but one would expect he would try to demonstrate there was nothing to the accusation with thoughtful testimony.

My only point about the Republicans is that they were not faced with a choice between Kavanaugh and a Democrat. If they really believed Dr. Ford, and if they thought Kavanaugh conducted himself poorly they could have appointed someone else with the same Judicial philosophy at no political cost.

I would vote for Biden over Trump even if he committed sexual assault because I'm certain Trump has violated multiple women. It's awful, but it's a choice between two candidates in the election. What if Trump hadn't done the things he's openly bragged about doing to women? I can see how this becomes a very difficult moral dilemma. I'm faced with the fact that I see Trump's incompetence and unique character deficits costing thousands of lives. I really see it that way.

[fred41]

Let’s see Bronc...lol. I posted that in the middle of the night after two bottles of wine. I think my point was that a lot of what we do is tribal anyhow, and that - whether we realize it or not, our opinions on political events, sometimes extraneous to an election , but not always, are already shaped in a preconceived way...something like that. Why do I say that? Because I can literally picture the same event in reverse - with the concerned party (Kavanaugh) having a reliably liberal ideology and submitted by Democrats...and you (or another poster), writing that whether or not it’s a criminal hearing or a “job interview”...western civilizations generally operate under the principle of Innocent until proven Guilty and blah, blah blah..
But anyhow, it’s tough ..because a considerable amount of time has now passed and I’ve already forgotten some of the smaller details. Wasn’t there some type of time constraint for the appointment? I’m not sure. I did find an interesting article on how he’s ruling on decisions now, but the Time article is dated the summer of 2019 :
https://time.com/longform/brett-kava...rt-first-term/

As to :
”I would vote for Biden over Trump even if he committed sexual assault because I'm certain Trump has violated multiple women. It's awful, but it's a choice between two candidates in the election. What if Trump hadn't done the things he's openly bragged about doing to women? I can see how this becomes a very difficult moral dilemma. I'm faced with the fact that I see Trump's incompetence and unique character deficits costing thousands of lives. I really see it that way.”

- I think there may have been a time when it was easier to pick between two choices like that , because perhaps the political parties weren’t so far apart at one point. Whether or not that was ever actually the case I’m not sure of since I’m really not much of a history buff, but at the very least, at this point in time , you’re really not making a choice “just between two guys”. If you suspect, for instance, that nominee Mr. A may have committed a crime, but seems competent and his opponent, Mr. B, is squeaky clean....but an idiot...then you’d still have the problem of electing , not only a moron, but someone who’s heavily ideologically opposed to your personal beliefs. Both Guilty of similar crimes, both innocent of similar crimes or...your guy guilty and the other guy innocent...it really doesn’t matter to a selection so much anymore. Maybe it really is time to break away from the two party system...I’m not sure. Anyhow this whole thought pattern came out when, I’m not certain if you remember this anymore, I asked a long time ago what it would take for someone to cast a vote for a candidate in the opposing party...if certain crimes were involved, and I believe you and Trish responded. Sometimes local elections are more fun because the fiber still seems to matter more than the Parties they attach their names to...sometimes just a way to get on a ballot. Sorry for the rambling post, but thanks for the response.

[fred41]

Oh and, I believe, Biden is probably innocent unless other women step forward. Problem is - he’s always been so creepy touchy feely, that a sexual assault allegation of unwanted touching seems plausible. That’s on him and his personality. I never really bought the whole “I’m from another time” argument either. I NEVER thought it was appropriate for guys to touch women a lot, even if they claim it was in a Paternal way...and I’m not that young either. It’s just weird. Interestingly enough, I always thought Trump was the opposite - that he didn’t even like to touch people, or be touched, at all.
Wait, got another one...What if you believed Biden was guilty, but Trump has a heart attack and someone else becomes the nominee...someone more even keeled, would that make a difference? Lol...either way - Have a Great Day!

[broncofan]

Anyhow this whole thought pattern came out when, I’m not certain if you remember this anymore, I asked a long time ago what it would take for someone to cast a vote for a candidate in the opposing party...if certain crimes were involved, and I believe you and Trish responded.

I remember you asking what it would take for me to vote for a Republican, but I'm not sure I remember it in the context of the Democrat committing crimes. But what if it were a lefty who was really out there and maybe a Republican who was a moderate? Maybe you didn't ask it that way but I came to the conclusion that in most cases it would be really hard for me.

It's not just political affiliation but there are a few social issues that were sticking points for me. But what if Mitt Romney ran against Jill Stein? I would vote for Mitt Romney over any of the candidates I've seen from the Green Party here because frankly they've been a dump site for every conspiracy theorist on the planet. I know she's not a Democrat, but the Green Party does sometimes cannibalize votes from Democrats.

If I were a conservative, how would I respond to the President calling the media the enemy of the people and claiming he has total power over the states, then calling for Virginians to protect their second amendment rights through civil unrest during a pandemic? Or if a Democrat did similar things, would I vote for the Democrat because they're pro-choice and support gay marriage? I think I wouldn't and it may be tribalism but I haven't seen a Democrat show such a flagrant disregard for institutions and people as Trump.