(05-08-2020 12:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 12:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 10:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's still early, lol

I do believe there is something to people who face assault and then put it away, UNTIL they see 'that person' acting like they're a champion 'for' those he assaulted. It's the 'denial' that bothers those people more than the act itself. It's almost a re-victimization.

I'm sure the denial does bother victims, but speaking of Reade, I don't think she put it away until now. Biden has been tooting the champion horn for a long time and has been a very prominent politico since at least 2008.

I think it's more once someone is up for a position of severe consequence that people begin to think, maybe I do need to speak up and the backlash I'll face will be worth it. We saw that with Ford once Kavanaugh was nominated and we're seeing it with Reade now. It's why I don't think accusations that wait until someone is up for something big should immediately be viewed as opportunists - sometimes the calculus changes for victims.

Biden has been prominent for much longer. He ran for President in '88. He was elected to the Senate when I was 9 years old and served until 2009.

Further, court records from her divorce in '96 show the testimony of her husband noting that she was wounded by the attack when she was working in the Senate office.

Quote:According to the document, which was obtained by the Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California, Reade's husband at the time, Theodore Dronen, said Reade told him about "a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office."

The document, which was filed in the California Superior Court and dated March 25, 1996, neither says who committed the harassment nor does it reference Reade's more recent allegation of sexual assault.

Dronen says Reade struck a deal with the chief of staff in Biden's office and "left her position."

The experience had a "very traumatic effect" on Reade, Dronen wrote.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...094342001/

Yep, Biden has been prominent for a lot longer than when he was chosen as VP. I figured that his choice as running mate was the most prominent position he's taken after the date of the potential Reade assault (1993).

So him running for POTUS in '88 doesn't quite come into play in my comment, which is that Reade waited until she felt he was applying for a position where parties needed to know her story. I was connecting the dots on why Reade waited to make the assault claims until he ran for POTUS - I think it has almost everything to do with him trying to reach the highest office in the land and less to do with Biden's potentially contradictory stances on women's issues.

Bluntly, Biden has been an extraordinarily prominent politician for over 30 years. He has been at the forefront of the Democratic party for almost all of my life.

Your comment really doesnt make sense with that depth and width of the footprint.

It *might* be had he had the following and depth of, say, a Ron Wyden or a Pat Roberts. But that really hasnt been the history of Joe.

Biden's tenure and chair of the Judiciary Committee saw him overseeing the two of the most contentious nominations in this nation's history --- and potentially the root of the problems of today's nominations process.

Sorry, Biden has been front and center of the Democratic party for most of my life. That may not be your perspective, but I would posit that perhaps in this one instance the delta between your age and mine makes a very serious difference in assessing that.

I'm not arguing that he hasn't been prominent - yes he has.

I'm actually providing rationale as to why Reade's claim is believable despite sitting on it for so long (with respect to making it public). Despite Biden having been prominent for countless years, this is the first time he has run for POTUS since the alleged assault took place.

Do you have another reason as to why she now decided to come forward, given that he has been so prominent for almost 30 years after the assault? Ham talked briefly about his stances on women's issues being problematic, but as you and I have both said, he's been a prominent politician for a long time, so if that were a big motivator she would have come forward sooner.

You seem to be wanting to argue for the sake of arguing here.