2020 Democratic Primary

[Dancien]

I hate the Tara Reade thing so goddamn much. It creates this massive dissonance between "Believe women" and "This is absolute horseshit"

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I hate the Tara Reade thing so goddamn much. It creates this massive dissonance between "Believe women" and "This is absolute horseshit"

Great description of the objective of disinformation campaigns.

 

[Salome]

I hate the Tara Reade thing so goddamn much. It creates this massive dissonance between "Believe women" and "This is absolute horseshit"

Much of this is because in the rare cases where slogans created by marginalized people actually manage to have impact, they are always corrupted by the rich, white power brokers that insist on framing all American narratives. Believe Women didn’t mean believe women blindly. Just like Black Lives Matter didn’t mean Only Black Lives Matter.

 

[Salome]

So Reade cancelled on Chris Wallace and Don Lemon and turned down offers to appear with Rachael Maddow and Joy Reid citing “security concerns” but had no problem going to the Daily Caller to troll for free representation and complain that she wasn’t getting the same support as Dr Ford who was fully vetted and outted against her will.

For someone that spent months screaming at politicians and celebrities on Twitter that they were complicit in her rape and silencing her, she sure doesn’t have much to say now that she’s getting the attention she asked for.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Believe Women didn’t mean believe women blindly. Just like Black Lives Matter didn’t mean Only Black Lives Matter.

In the UK, it's official policy that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service should operate on the default assumption that credible complaints of sexual assault (of whatever sort) are true, and should be investigated on that basis.

If the investigation then uncovers evidence that seems to contract the complainant's account, or otherwise calls it into question, then obviously that needs further investigation and explanation, and may well call into question the complainant's credibility as a reliable witness of fact, but the default assumption is that you believe the complainant until you have a good reason to doubt her.

I had always assumed that it means something like that in the US, too.

 

[Romana]

In the UK, it's official policy that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service should operate on the default assumption that credible complaints of sexual assault (of whatever sort) are true, and should be investigated on that basis.

If the investigation then uncovers evidence that seems to contract the complainant's account, or otherwise calls it into question, then obviously that needs further investigation and explanation, and may well call into question the complainant's credibility as a reliable witness of fact, but the default assumption is that you believe the complainant until you have a good reason to doubt her.

I had always assumed that it means something like that in the US, too.

I'm not sure if there's an official policy regarding complainants. All too often policy there seems to hinge on who's in power and what they can get out of believing or disbelieving.
I'm quite sure, however, that those accused are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The angry Berners, with encouragement from chaos agents and 45 asskissers, have thrown that out the window, missing no opportunity to call Biden a rapist, conveniently ignoring past and ongoing complaints against Dump.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

In the UK, it's official policy that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service should operate on the default assumption that credible complaints of sexual assault (of whatever sort) are true, and should be investigated on that basis.

If the investigation then uncovers evidence that seems to contract the complainant's account, or otherwise calls it into question, then obviously that needs further investigation and explanation, and may well call into question the complainant's credibility as a reliable witness of fact, but the default assumption is that you believe the complainant until you have a good reason to doubt her.

I had always assumed that it means something like that in the US, too.

In most cases, sure. But not when it comes to sexual harassment and rape. We still have a pretty poisonous 'She was asking for it' attitude, that might be changing, but all too often, well...' And cases where its a false accusation just make it harder to break down that attitude once and for all.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

I'm not sure if there's an official policy regarding complainants. All too often policy there seems to hinge on who's in power and what they can get out of believing or disbelieving.

Yeah, that.

Look at what happened to Brett Kavanaugh. Oh, wait - he was installed to the highest court in the nation while his accusers were tarred and feathered by the GOP.

 

[Salome]

In the UK, it's official policy that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service should operate on the default assumption that credible complaints of sexual assault (of whatever sort) are true, and should be investigated on that basis.

If the investigation then uncovers evidence that seems to contract the complainant's account, or otherwise calls it into question, then obviously that needs further investigation and explanation, and may well call into question the complainant's credibility as a reliable witness of fact, but the default assumption is that you believe the complainant until you

have a good reason to doubt her.

I had always assumed that it means something like that in the US, too.

For a long time it depended on what kind of cop you got when you tried to report. For context, I had an incident where a guy I barely knew as a name on a screen from a message board hired a PI to stalk my house and take photos of me. When he asked the PI to break into my house I got a knock on my door from a stranger telling me I needed to notify the police. When the cop showed up, he refused to believe I had no idea who the guy was and kept asking me what I’d done to make him angry. It took my father losing his temper for the cop to stop being an asshole and take down the report and get the ball in motion. And that was with the PI the guy had hired standing in the room explaining how the guy had been creepily escalating his requests for weeks. If the PI had been a really unethical scumbag and I’d had to report something based just on my word, I’d never have gotten that cop to take me seriously. Granted, that was online stalking and harassment, but I’ve counseled many women through the years and there has traditionally been a lot of luck of the dice on who you get as to whether or not you are taken seriously, even when there is physical evidence of abuse.

 

[Salome]

All this said, it’s worth noting that false reporting is extremely rare and false accusations are rarer. In the majority of modern cases where a person has been wrongfully convicted it’s usually a mistaken ID, where an assault still took place. We know this because it’s usually DNA evidence that vindicates the innocent person.

When it comes to the rare false reporting and rarer false accusation, this article has a good rundown of the profile of those situations. Most false reports are teenagers who are trying to get out of being in trouble or people that need a police report for healthcare.

False accusations are usually made by a person with a history of deceptive/fraudulent actions and/or a tendency to make grandiose claims among other frequent behaviors.

 

[Free]

 

[Dancien]

This is the weirdest timeline

 

[Salome]

This is the weirdest timeline

Not really. Those on the Right recognize they can use Reade to rehabilitate Kavanaugh. Since the polling shows there’s a real chance they could lose the Senate and Kavanaugh lied under oath and could be impeached for it, trying to equate Ford with Reade is a deliberate strategy.

 

[Salome]

The current smear being spread about Biden...and I can barely believe I’m posting this... is that he deliberately lied about the man that was driving the tractor trailer that killed Biden’s wife and baby daughter and injured his sons. The claim is that Biden knowingly lied about the man being drunk and “ruined him.”

Putting aside the utter ghoulishness, the facts are:
1. It was 1972. News reports at the time said the man had been drinking.
2. The police records have been lost, but the judge remembers they could not find evidence of drunk driving to bring charges.
3. Biden continued to believe and talk about losing loved ones to a drunk driver until many years later when he chose to reach out to the daughter and family of the man and tell them he could accept their belief that their father had not been drinking.

This is how this unimaginably tragic situation is making the rounds:


People are fucking ghouls.

ETA: For anyone that would like to understand how the drunk driver accusations started, here is a blog post made in 2009 by one of the first responders. In it he explains: “To be honest, those of us in fire-rescue here in Delaware assumed that Mr. Dunn had been drinking, based on comments made by police officers at the scene.”

So the people who saved his sons and tried to save his wife and baby daughter told him the man had been drinking. He believed them. This is what they are using as an attack.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Nearly 3.2 Million More Americans Filed For Unemployment

Fiddling while the country burns.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

For a long time it depended on what kind of cop you got when you tried to report. For context, I had an incident where a guy I barely knew as a name on a screen from a message board hired a PI to stalk my house and take photos of me. When he asked the PI to break into my house I got a knock on my door from a stranger telling me I needed to notify the police.

In my case, my husband walked out the front door holding a 12 gauge when the guy parked across the street. He didn't point it or threaten him, he just jacked a shell into the chamber and glared. It's probably the only time I was glad I lived in a red state with "castle defense" philosophy.

Then we contacted the cops and presented the evidence that he'd been stalking me. Ultimately, they discovered that the ass had a couple of outstanding warrants for stalking and harassment. He went to jail and I never cared to find out what happened to him. Maybe I should have. But I was more worried about my own peace of mind at that moment.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

Nearly 3.2 Million More Americans Filed For Unemployment

Fiddling while the country burns.

So you're a Trump supporter then? There is no middle ground this time. You're either in or you're out, regardless of how imperfect Joe may be. And he's hardly "Fiddling".

 

[Romana]

So you're a Trump supporter then? There is no middle ground this time. You're either in or you're out, regardless of how imperfect Joe may be. And he's hardly "Fiddling".

Anyone thinking at this point that Biden and not Rump is the one fiddling needs to have their head examined.

 

[Romana]

The current smear being spread about Biden...and I can barely believe I’m posting this... is that he deliberately lied about the man that was driving the tractor trailer that killed Biden’s wife and baby daughter and injured his sons. The claim is that Biden knowingly lied about the man being drunk and “ruined him.”

Putting aside the utter ghoulishness, the facts are:
1. It was 1972. News reports at the time said the man had been drinking.
2. The police records have been lost, but the judge remembers they could not find evidence of drunk driving to bring charges.
3. Biden continued to believe and talk about losing loved ones to a drunk driver until many years later when he chose to reach out to the daughter and family of the man and tell them he could accept their belief that their father had not been drinking.

This is how this unimaginably tragic situation is making the rounds:


People are fucking ghouls.

ETA: For anyone that would like to understand how the drunk driver accusations started, here is a blog post made in 2009 by one of the first responders. In it he explains: “To be honest, those of us in fire-rescue here in Delaware assumed that Mr. Dunn had been drinking, based on comments made by police officers at the scene.”

So the people who saved his sons and tried to save his wife and baby daughter told him the man had been drinking. He believed them. This is what they are using as an attack.

Oh, that ghoul again. Grandma Killer and proud of it. Link to the tweet about her I replied to rather than her original tweet so as not to give her extra views:

 

[Free]

Fiddling while the country burns.

Yeah, why doesn't Biden just raise an army and march on Washington, already!