Joe Biden defense thread

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Well, if he did sexually assault women, at least he has the decency not to brag about it. Because that's the subterranean depths where the bar is set in our political discourse now. x_X

[Captain Crimson]

It's not hard to say which it is. Everything there is consistent. Taking a sexual assailant to trial is an exercise in futility. You make it very plain from your own words that you are not somebody this "friend" can really trust or rely on for support.

I always greatly encourage going to trial. I think we need more prosecutions. But if the person doesn't want to have it, what can you do? And you think memory is consistent? For real? As I'd said, something very demeaning had happened, but to the degree that the story changes you only have a firm basis to speculate. That in one instance he'd grabbed her bum, and in the other, her chest. I get why, though. An especially traumatic event is going to be remembered in warped ways, like everything else. And a jury and a prosecutor will be looking to scrutinize very closely. Picking apart the details and hesitancy will look like deception. But past going to trial, what is there to do but just listen to them when they need to vent a little? Which is what I've done. All you need sometimes is a warm, supportive voice when you need it most. A shoulder.

You know nothing about the person, you know nothing about what happened and all you really have is, a very vague third-person account and yet you automatically assume that Crimson's friend is the victim and is a 100% truthful. Such standards...

My point was I always believed it, yet I never knew what degree of evil it was, relatively speaking. I just agreed it was all horrible in the end, and that she wasn't to blame. Which is why she appreciated it so much because she knew that a courtroom would tear her to pieces and she wouldn't be seen as credible, given how painful it was.

It's kind of inevitable since this is revealing the left's double standards. Not necessarily Fuzzy, but how the DNC will kill the #MeToo movement they claim to champion just to put in the lesser of two evils. At what point do we say that's enough?

The whole point was to try and encourage Fuzzy regarding this, but I can see how it backfired, since they no doubt believe the accusations against Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Biden both equally, which I can appreciate, because it reveals Fuzzy's inherent human double standards only go so far, which I'd like from more people. At least they've looked to have taken some small grain from this. That's something, I guess...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's kind of inevitable since this is revealing the left's double standards. Not necessarily Fuzzy, but how the DNC will kill the #MeToo movement they claim to champion just to put in the lesser of two evils. At what point do we say that's enough?

Lol it's inevitable because these are two polar opposite circumstances of consideration for the same person. Is he personally of the most reprehensible people and should he hold the most esteemed position in modern western history.

[Captain Crimson]

It's kind of inevitable since this is revealing the left's double standards. Not necessarily Fuzzy, but how the DNC will kill the #MeToo movement they claim to champion just to put in the lesser of two evils. At what point do we say that's enough?

Lol it's inevitable because these are two polar opposite circumstances of consideration for the same person. Is he personally of the most reprehensible people and should he hold the most esteemed position in modern western history.

It's inevitable because this deserves due consideration the same way the case against Mr. Kavanaugh did. Even Mr. Biden himself said the words to the effect that if you disbelieve them, don't vote for his side. And that gave me more respect than anything he could have said, and a slightly stronger reason to believe him.

It's relevant because people like Fuzzy seem to believe any accusation that is made, and... I get it. It's not brought to justice enough in our society. That's an issue. But why is that? That this is the most emotional crime possible so that you can't disconnect it enough to allow the details to be picked over that's the core of a criminal law proceeding. But... simply believing any allegation made opens a dark doorway. I am not saying this is happening now, but it could enable accusations to be made simply to take down somebody. I don't think it is. But believing someone simply on what they say is just as bad as rejecting it outright.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's kind of inevitable since this is revealing the left's double standards. Not necessarily Fuzzy, but how the DNC will kill the #MeToo movement they claim to champion just to put in the lesser of two evils. At what point do we say that's enough?

Lol it's inevitable because these are two polar opposite circumstances of consideration for the same person. Is he personally of the most reprehensible people and should he hold the most esteemed position in modern western history.

It's inevitable because this deserves due consideration the same way the case against Mr. Kavanaugh did. Even Mr. Biden himself said the words to the effect that if you disbelieve them, don't vote for his side. And that gave me more respect than anything he could have said, and a slightly stronger reason to believe him.

It's relevant because people like Fuzzy seem to believe any accusation that is made, and... I get it. It's not brought to justice enough in our society. That's an issue. But why is that? That this is the most emotional crime possible so that you can't disconnect it enough to allow the details to be picked over that's the core of a criminal law proceeding. But... simply believing any allegation made opens a dark doorway. I am not saying this is happening now, but it could enable accusations to be made simply to take down somebody. I don't think it is. But believing someone simply on what they say is just as bad as rejecting it outright.

I don't think the likes of Fuzzy Necromancer have the most influence on official matters.

Take the probability of it though. Is it plausible that she's lying? On a broad scale of society, sure, accounting for like any random women in the US. Granted it's less likely to be true for someone he worked with imo.

On the issue of any woman's testimony in itself. Is it probable that she's lying? The consensus among people points towards no. And it's a very understandable condition. I'm under the impression myself that it's more likely that she knows what she's talking about rather than her inflating the account. Considering both those as potential facts, It's 1: not probable that any accusation is ultimately fake particularly in this case, and 2: not probable that an accusation is misguided significantly.

And that's just how people geared to perceive the situation.

[Captain Crimson]

It's kind of inevitable since this is revealing the left's double standards. Not necessarily Fuzzy, but how the DNC will kill the #MeToo movement they claim to champion just to put in the lesser of two evils. At what point do we say that's enough?

Lol it's inevitable because these are two polar opposite circumstances of consideration for the same person. Is he personally of the most reprehensible people and should he hold the most esteemed position in modern western history.

It's inevitable because this deserves due consideration the same way the case against Mr. Kavanaugh did. Even Mr. Biden himself said the words to the effect that if you disbelieve them, don't vote for his side. And that gave me more respect than anything he could have said, and a slightly stronger reason to believe him.

It's relevant because people like Fuzzy seem to believe any accusation that is made, and... I get it. It's not brought to justice enough in our society. That's an issue. But why is that? That this is the most emotional crime possible so that you can't disconnect it enough to allow the details to be picked over that's the core of a criminal law proceeding. But... simply believing any allegation made opens a dark doorway. I am not saying this is happening now, but it could enable accusations to be made simply to take down somebody. I don't think it is. But believing someone simply on what they say is just as bad as rejecting it outright.

I don't think the likes of Fuzzy Necromancer have the most influence on official matters.

Take the probability of it though. Is it plausible that she's lying? On a broad scale of society, sure, accounting for like any random women in the US. Granted it's less likely to be true for someone he worked with imo.

On the issue of any woman's testimony in itself. Is it probable that she's lying? The consensus among people points towards no. And it's a very understandable condition. I'm under the impression myself that it's more likely that she knows what she's talking about rather than her inflating the account. Considering both those as potential facts, It's 1: not probable that any accusation is ultimately fake particularly in this case, and 2: not probable that an accusation is misguided significantly.

And that's just how people geared to perceive the situation.

Fuzzy does not.

Statistically, it is still very low. But I could absolutely believe a man who during that historic ruling didn't feel like giving a woman total body autonomy could feel like assaulting someone, or just grabbing them in inappropriate places. The same man who talked about a racial jungle.

What I ultimately WANT is the DNC to open a hearing into this. We know they never will, they've deemed Mr. 45 as the worst of two evils, and are rationalizing ways to themselves that it's not reality, so there you go. Whether he did this or not, it's bad PR because it would hurt Mr. Biden's chances. But our demand for such a hearing should not go away just because it will hurt his chances against Mr. 45.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It's not hard to say which it is. Everything there is consistent. Taking a sexual assailant to trial is an exercise in futility. You make it very plain from your own words that you are not somebody this "friend" can really trust or rely on for support.

I always greatly encourage going to trial.

But do you realize that, even when they prosecute, a rapist will rarely even see any jail time? It's got one of the lowest conviction rates of any crime. Why do you advise going to trial if you know it will do so little and re-traumatize her?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's not hard to say which it is. Everything there is consistent. Taking a sexual assailant to trial is an exercise in futility. You make it very plain from your own words that you are not somebody this "friend" can really trust or rely on for support.

I always greatly encourage going to trial.

But do you realize that, even when they prosecute, a rapist will rarely even see any jail time? It's got one of the lowest conviction rates of any crime. Why do you advise going to trial if you know it will do so little and re-traumatize her?

The whole point of due process is to not act against potentially innocent people. As long as that principle is standing, people aren't going to support acting on accusation alone.

On one hand I get that this isn't so much a court of law thing but largely a social movement that hopes that any influential agent should disband from Biden, including DNC, and that this is largely because the justice system is incomplete. And on the other hand people are not going to support acting in spite of systematic review.

[Captain Crimson]

It's not hard to say which it is. Everything there is consistent. Taking a sexual assailant to trial is an exercise in futility. You make it very plain from your own words that you are not somebody this "friend" can really trust or rely on for support.

I always greatly encourage going to trial.

But do you realize that, even when they prosecute, a rapist will rarely even see any jail time? It's got one of the lowest conviction rates of any crime. Why do you advise going to trial if you know it will do so little and re-traumatize her?

It is a very sticky situation, I admit, but my way of thinking is that can be cathartic in some cases. Not so for others, which is where you need to accept the line, and push only as far as a supportive friend or family member can and then no further. As I'd said, the emotions of this crime are the most hot-blooded of our race, so it makes the idea of picking over details in an allegedly impartial manner seem daunting to the victims, and so they never head to court at all. Believe me, me and her had gone over this.

I think prevention is a superior method to treatment for this kind of stuff, anyway. Education, social reform, and changing technologies. Plus holding our elite figures accountable. Which is why it shakes my head that the DNC won't open a hearing into this. At least Mr. Kavanaugh had gone to a hearing. I guarantee you Mr. Biden will not because the DNC knows that's political suicide for November. This is also not an issue of a random accusation at the smallest and most local grassroots level. This is about one of our nation's biggest movers and shakers. So conduct yourself according, know what I'm saying?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Kavanaugh had a hearing because you have to go through one of those to become the highest judicial official in the U S of Frickin A. Inquiring whether he was guilty of sexual assault was just one item brought up at the extensive hearing.