I'd like to remind people in this thread that the two possible victors this fall are the party that cut the uninsured rate in half and the party that will not let you vote without risking the contraction and spread of a deadly disease.

The New York Times Is Extremely Skeptical of Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden. Imagine That.

It's an excruciatingly matter-of-fact article, bereft of the emotion and rhetorical flourishes that have often characterized the Times' past reporting on #MeToo stories. The Times' investigative piece on Deborah Ramirez, Brett Kavanaugh's Yale accuser, was headlined, "Brett Kavanaugh Fit in With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not." The paper also ran ostensibly objective pieces with headlines like "For Christine Blasey Ford, a Drastic Turn From a Quiet Life in Academia" and "With Caffeine and Determination, Christine Blasey Ford Relives Her Trauma." These were news articles, but it was not hard to detect an agenda: portray the accuser as so likable and sympathetic that readers would want to believe her. There is no such agenda in the Reade article; the reporters come across as extremely skeptical of her (not without some justification). The paragraph containing the news hook for this story—that Reade finally, on Thursday, filed a police report about the incident—contains this oddly placed reminder: "Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment."

The New York Times' Lisa Lerer and Sydney Ember spoke with dozens of people—including many who worked alongside Reade and Biden in 1993, the year that she alleges Biden digitally penetrated her without her permission while they were alone together—but the only supportive evidence came from secondhand accounts of friends and family. "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation," wrote Lerer and Ember. "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." Given how ridiculous this passage sounded to many readers, editors swiftly removed—without acknowledgement—everything after "Biden." The Twitter version endured for longer.

It's fine to be skeptical of Reade. (The suspicious timing of the her allegations is just one reason: Reason contributor Cathy Young notes several others.) And it's more than fine—commendable, even—for journalists to seek the facts and then refrain from making sweeping judgments when there just isn't compelling evidence to establish that a decades' old story holds enough water for a reasonable person to consider the subject disqualified from higher office. But the Times and other outlets are proceeding with a level of caution that's inconsistent with how they treated the Kavanaugh allegations, even though the evidence was similarly weak (and the underling incidents less serious) in that case. One cannot help but indulge the suspicion that the inconvenience of the allegation against Biden—it could work to the advantage of President Donald Trump's re-election—might have given the media (and some erstwhile believe-all-women activists) pause.

The audacity of that stealth edit! It's just innocent kisses and touches and hugs from a very powerful man. It only made the women uncomfortable, Nothing to report here! I mean.. am I surprised Joe is handsy and creepy? Big fat no.

But I am surprised we are told not to be outraged by it by the same people who have been selling us fake outrage for few years now.

Thanks for the NYT article!

I'll be sure to share that with undecided voters that have legitimate concerns.

You're not alone...

Kyle in this video reminded me that kids were in cages during the Obama/Biden era as well. 

That's not how voting works. I voted FOR Clinton in the general last time because despite the ideological difference and her major flaws, I still felt she was a semi-decent person that was extremely competent and capable to be president. Can't say the same for Biden. I'm not a never Biden person but he does have to give people like me a reason to vote FOR him. It's really quite simple too, support M4A and bolder action to combat climate change. If he supported that I can suck it up and go against my beliefs and vote for him, despite me believing Tara Reade.

I'm tired of my community being taken for granted by the Democratic party, just because they throw us a bone every once in awhile doesn't mean I should pledge my allegiance to them. Every election cycle it's the same shit, POC bending the knee to oppressive old white men who just give us an inch because the other guy ain't giving us any. I feel like a bargaining chip. I'm honestly over being taken for granted and giving oppressors power, I'm not supporting someone who doesn't listen to my people and their needs. He should be better and if he does get better, he'll have my vote.

My people suffered before Trump and they'll suffer after if something doesn't change. The only difference now is that Trump brings to light all the racism, hatred, bigotry and oppression the status quo is to white people that we poc been knew was there. White people are uncomfortable and want him out so they can go back to being apathetic.

I understand the feeling behind it, but in this case we have an incumbent administration that has actively and successfully taken steps to discriminate and marginalize this very same community. Wouldn't it be better to vote against them in favor of an administration that wouldn't do such a thing?

So... your sick of your community being taken advantage of... and you don’t like the bones the Democratic Party throws you... so you are fine with letting the guy that is actually taking bones AWAY from you stay in office?  

I mean, it’s your vote, do what you want with it... There is just no way in hell trump is gonna be better for you than Biden.  Not in the long term or the short term.

Democrats lose in November do you think they are gonna feel regret for not nominating Sanders?  Certainly didn’t hear any of that last time.  It was just about how Clinton failed and underestimated trump in key states.  

Not voting for Biden is going to make a statement to yourself and nobody else.  If you want to make that statement to yourself great, just don’t complain about trump.

Which political party do you believe you can have the best representation in.  The GOP or the Dems.  That is the real question you should be asking.  Change doesn't happen overnight but there is definitely one party that accept change better than others and also give better chances.  The chance to get better representation is the key you are looking for.  Not voting is definitely a vote for Trump because the GOP is hopping Dem turn out is smaller.  Its why they look for many ways to suppress the vote.  Smaller voting pools mean better chance for GOP candidate.