Biden Having A Hard Time Squirming Out Of His Previously Stated Views
Robby Soave writes at Reason about Biden previously having advocated the "believe victims" standard. Biden denied that on Morning Joe to Mika Brzezinski:
Brzezinski wasn't having it. She repeatedly reminded Biden that he had advocated believing Christine Blasey Ford, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. She even read his own words back to him: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time." Brzezinski also called out several of Biden's high profile supports--Stacey Abrams, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)--for participating in the Kavanaugh double standard.Caught in an obvious contradiction, Biden then tried to say that victims should be believed until contrary evidence emerges.
"Women are to be believed, given the benefit of the doubt," said Biden. "If they come forward and say something happened to them, they should start with the presumption they are telling the truth. Then you have to look at the facts.
"What I said during the Kavanaugh hearings was she had a right to be heard," Biden continued. "And she came forward, the presumption would be she's telling the truth unless it's proved she wasn't telling the truth, or unless it's clear from the facts surrounding it that it isn't the truth."
But under this standard, Biden would be presumed guilty. If the former vice president is taking the position that women should be believed unless their accusations are disproven, then the burden of evidence is on the accused. No evidence has emerged that explicitly contradicts Reade's story. Does that mean the public should default to believing her?
Biden seems to think the lack of evidence confirming Reade's story is the same thing as evidence disproving it. Indeed, Biden's campaign has circulated the talking point that The New York Times investigated the allegation and found that it wasn't credible. The Times rightly objected to this characterization of its reporting. The newspaper didn't find hard evidence supporting either finding; that is quite different than saying they disproved Reade.
This is why the presumption of innocence matters, in both a criminal and a cultural context. If there's no way to determine what happened, one solution would be to default toward not believing it--or at least, not punishing the accused. An extraordinary claim requires affirmative evidence to be accepted, and if the evidence does not materialize, it is rejected. That seems to be what Biden is saying now. It's definitely not what he said before.
"When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos pushed reforms in 2017 to restore fairness and due processs, Mr Biden called [her] and her supporters 'cultural Neanderthals.' Now he wants the protections she restored." -@WSJ editorial
— Barbara Kay (@BarbaraRKay) May 3, 2020
Biden should step down, using health concerns as the excuse to save face.
The dems should pick someone moderate, NOT Bernie/
NicoleK at May 3, 2020 12:23 AM
Joe won't step down. Joe's wanted to be president since I was old enough to vote. While I generally hold that no one should be elected president who doesn't want the job, I'm also a bit leery of electing someone who seems to want the job a little too much, especially someone who's been in politics all his working life and has never competed in the private sector in any meaningful way.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." ~ Douglas Adams
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2020 7:34 AM
The complete Adams quote:
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them."
"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."
"To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2020 7:47 AM
If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.
Oh, crap. Did I just do myself in?
Regarding Joey "The Fingers" Biden: if it weren't for double standards, he'd have none. Also, for these people, it isn't what they've done that matters. It's what the say they've done, and what they say they'll do.
I'll leave it in Iowahawk's capable tweet:
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/332494589934047234
I R A Darth Aggie at May 3, 2020 8:14 AM
Sowing. Reaping. How does that work, Fingers? emphasis mine:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/andrew-sullivan-by-bidens-own-standards-he-is-guilty.html
I R A Darth Aggie at May 3, 2020 8:59 AM
"The dems should pick someone moderate" ~NicoleK
Ok, name someone.
This entire election cycle the Democrats have rushed to support the candidate they knew least. And then once they got to know them they rushed to pick someone else less well known.
Ben at May 3, 2020 9:34 AM
I'd say Tulsi, but the strike against her is that she supports Medicare for All. While I do agree that we need a health insurance / healthcare program that is not tied to employment, a single-payer system run by the government is not the answer.
Still, I found her to be the least objectionable of the Dems running in the last cycle - the most open to reason and not tied to Leftist dogma.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2020 10:10 AM
Tulsi, Medicare for all won't pass anyways.
Pete. Amy. Andrew. That billionaire guy. Not Bernie.
NicoleK at May 3, 2020 10:36 AM
I actually agree with yall that Tulsi has the best chances in a general election. But as IRA has mentioned she has all but been run out of the party. It is the catch-22 of this year's people. If they could get elected they can't get nominated and if they can get nominated they can't get elected.
If you listen to Arty then Biden's biggest problem is he is too moderate.
Ben at May 3, 2020 10:49 AM
That billionaire guy.
He blew about a billion dollars on his two (?) month run. He amassed 31 delegates. An ancestor called and said If he is victorious in one more battle with the Bidens, he shall be utterly ruined.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 3, 2020 11:11 AM
Hiya Bensy-Bunny!
Is that a Texas Tanline there on the bridge of your nose?
Crid at May 3, 2020 1:48 PM
> Joe's wanted to be president
> since I was old enough to vote.
Yeah, but it's only May! He's a deeply senior man having a difficult year. By midsummer, they might be able to tempt him with homey pleasure like a bowl of warm, maple-sweetened oats and his favorite slippers, those ones that are fluffy inside.
Also, Barry might make a phone call.
Crid at May 3, 2020 2:08 PM
Ben Says:
"If you listen to Arty then Biden's biggest problem is he is too moderate."
Then you haven't been listening.
Biden's biggest problem is he is a complete dope.
I believe I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe if a debate were to occur between Trump and Biden it will be the most unintelligent discourse to ever occur on television.
Why would you presume that I thought his biggest problem was being too moderate?
You are just making things up again.
Queue some statement about how you don't read what I have to say... and yet you speak with confidence about what my opinions are.
Artemis at May 3, 2020 2:55 PM
No Crid I don't have one of those. I tend to wear my mask when I go to the store, so tanning doesn't happen much with it on. Interestingly we seem to be about 50% compliant around here on mask usage. It does vary quite a bit around the state.
Arty, you've stated multiple times that Biden needs to head left to pickup Sanders supporters. Nothing I made up. But I can accept that you think him being a dope is a bigger issue. His obvious slide into dementia is a huge problem for him.
Ben at May 3, 2020 3:15 PM
Ben,
What I have said is that in order to bring the party together he would be well advised to take on some policy positions of his primary opponent.
That is standard politics.
That doesn't imply massive movement or that he has to become Sanders.
The smart political move is to do *something* to convince the party as a whole that he is interested in representing everyone.
Artemis at May 3, 2020 3:21 PM
> I tend to wear my mask when....
Golly! After all your witless posturing, it's a surprise you make time for them at all.
"Tend."
Crid at May 3, 2020 5:13 PM
What was that about how you don't start fights Crid? Take an actual look back over your posts. Just like here you almost always start fight. The truth is you are a bully.
The funny thing is I was probably wearing a mask long before you. If I wasn't on your silly enemies list you probably could have actually read what I wrote instead of freaking out and sounding like a lunatic. It would have saved you the trouble of calling me out with your 'Damn Ben' posts where you said I was wrong and then posted long lists about how I was right. Absolutely bizarre behavior.
Ben at May 3, 2020 5:29 PM
" NOT Bernie/"
Aw, c'mon, where's the fun in that?
More outsiders mean more media meltdown, and that's just darned good entertainment.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 3, 2020 11:06 PM
"The funny thing"
Crid at May 4, 2020 8:01 AM
Can't refute anything I wrote, eh Crid? Just stuck quoting random things out of context?
Ben at May 4, 2020 9:03 AM
You'll never acknowledge refutation: You won't do homework. When busted, it's 'bullying.'
Crid at May 4, 2020 1:08 PM
Busted nothing Crid. Look at this damn thread! It isn't complicated! Who started shit? You. When I refused to take the bait who tried to start things again? You! Why am I on your pathetic 'enemies for life' list? Well, I told you a truth you just don't want to accept.
Homework has been done over and over again. The one who can't accept reality is you!
None of this is complicated. Anyone with an IQ above room temp can look at just this thread and see the truth. You need to stop lying to yourself. And not even for my sake but for your's. Seriously look at your words above. Nothing but random words in quote marks. Look at your 'refutations' in the past. Complaints about punctuation? You think that is a refutation? Linking things that claim I am correct? This is a refutation?
Learn to be comfortable with who you are Crid. You are old enough it is time to grow up.
Ben at May 4, 2020 5:34 PM
Just to be fair about things since we are on the subject. Arty, you were right and I was wrong when I characterized your views. I misunderstood the view you were trying to make. The level of sasback you gave was proportionate. Hell, it was actually less that I deserved. And to take things even a step further I acknowledge your greater insight into DNC politicking.
Ben at May 4, 2020 6:50 PM
Ben,
I appreciate your acknowledgement that you had misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
For what it is worth you are absolutely correct that Crid has been starting shit with you and tries to pretend he is in some sense the aggrieved party or that his behavior is justified.
At some point folks need to decide if that is the kind of discourse we all want to have here or if the goal is to have real conversations with people of differing perspectives.
Everyone is fully capable of being an ass or snarky or insulting if they want to. The most important point though is that we recognize who exactly is instigating things.
Artemis at May 5, 2020 8:41 AM
I wouldn't get your hopes up too much Arty. I'm still the same ass I've always been.
Ben at May 5, 2020 7:37 PM
Ben,
I suspect that is the same attitude most folks have... which is why for the life of me I cannot understand why folks get upset when they are on the receiving end.
In any event, everyone gets to choose how they interact here, hostile or conversational or anything in between. However those choices are not generally consequence free.
As for me I will continue with my game theoretic approach.
Artemis at May 5, 2020 10:23 PM
Leave a comment