Underwhelmed

You cannot call yourself a progressive if you support tax cuts to coal companies.
Our planet is burning. We have the power to stop it. There are hundreds of policies which can be used to both fight global warming and help marginalized people.
Please support expanding access to food stamps. Expand access to college. Boost support for K-12 education. Bring back the WPA. Increase subsidies for solar panels, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear power.
Support exemption-free carbon taxes.
But if you have ever once supported tax exemptions to coal companies, you likely will not get my vote, and you will definitely never get my labor or campaign donations for any of your campaigns for the rest of your career unless if you come around and join us at Carbon Washington and Carbon Tax Center for climate policy which is both equitable and effective.

Progressive Platform in under 250 words

  1. Move at least half of police funding to social services
  2. Nationwide exemption free carbon tax which will increase annually
  3. Universal Basic Income
  4. Medicare for All
  5. Easier Access to Food Stamps
  6. Audit the Department of Defense
  7. Cut government waste
  8. Legalize and tax all drugs. Drug addiction should be treated as a health issue.
  9. Tax capital gains as regular income
  10. Increase the tobacco tax
  11. Universal preschool
  12. Reform mental asylums. Make them more humane

I generated the total amount of where taxes go per capita for people in Olympia, Washington today, across all government agencies:

About 19% of all government spending goes to health care, adding up to $6424 per person. This is about 9.5% of the GDP per capita for the average Washingtonian. This is larger than the total health care spending, public and private, for most other developed countries. This is why we need more health care reform.

Expanding access to food stamps is simply because food stamps provide one of the biggest benefits to our economy, and they make it so that almost no one in America truly starves. America has such a low hunger rate that we are not even measured by the Global Hunger Index. Food stamps are responsible for a significant portion of this, along with a high average quality of living, and food banks.

 

What religious freedom means

The Supreme Court made a terrible decision yesterday, ruling that employers are allowed to deny access to birth control to their employees.

This idea is that forcing an employer to pay for the birth control of their employee as part of their health insurance is forcing the business owner to violate their religious beliefs.

The first problem I have with this is very simple. If a Quaker is opposed to war they have to still pay taxes, and 1 in 8 of their tax dollars will go to military, despite it being a long held religious conviction that war is against the word of God. Quakers do not get a 12% tax reduction because of their opposition to war. This is unequal treatment under the law.

My second major problem with this is that this is not the employer deciding whether they personally will or will not get birth control. That is their body and their choice. The issue here is that as part of employment, the United States has reached a compromise that employers provide health insurance for their employees as part of employment, in lieu of a Medicare for all scheme. Birth control is a form of health care. Period. The employer doesn’t get to dock an employee’s pay because that employee decides to use their money one way or another. They have paid that employee for work and at that point the only other person who has any legal right to say how that individual spends their money is their lawfully wedded spouse if they are in a community property arrangement. If that employee decides to use their income to buy condoms or an IUD, it is none of that employer’s business, and they should have no say.

This decision is so highly unethical, that it is saying that employers have a legal right to say what employees may or may not use their income to do. As part of the contract of employment that employer is obligated to provide health insurance. That is the compromise the United States reached when we could not get enough Senators on board to back Medicare for All. Part of that compromise is that health insurance needs to be all encompassing.

This idea that the employer is paying for health insurance is also a half truth, because there is a small but very real reduction in cash wages when employers provide benefits to employees, and that employee is paying some of that cost by slightly lower cash. That’s just how such things work in microeconomics. At that point the business owner is forcing the purchases of their employee because of some religious hang up because of that amount the cash wages are necessarily being reduced by benefits, which is forcing their religion on the personal purchases of their employees. Any individual who forces their religion on another is violating the first amendment.

Fuck it, health care is a human right. Birth control is a human right.

Fuck this shit.

I’m so fucking tired of these Republicans trying to jam their religion down my throat. I am so fucking tired of these prudes telling me what I can and cannot say. I feel like we are still living in Salem, Massachusetts during the Salem Witch Trials with this bullshit.

I’m fucking angry.

Birth control is a human right. Comprehensive sexual education is a human right.

People deserve to understand their bodies.

People deserve to have control over their bodies.

If you have a problem with that you can suck my dick.

Analyzing America’s presidents

Timelnie of United States Presidents

  • Grey means no election.
  • Blue means the candidate won a majority of the popular vote twice
  • Red means one of the President’s terms was shorter than 4 years.
  • Green means the President either only served one term or did not win a majority of the popular vote in one of his elections.
  • Purple is Franklin Delano Roosevelt because he won the popular vote four times and died in office.

If we are to categorize the 44 men who have served as President in American history, here are some statistics.
Previous office:

  • Governor, 14
  • Senator, 11
  • Vice President, 8
  • Representative, 6
  • General, 2

We have had 20 two term Presidents.

14 Presidents have served 8 years as President.

Only FDR has served more than 2 terms.

Calvin Coolidge, LBJ, and Nixon are the only three Presidents to serve between 4 and 8 years as President.

The first 6 Presidents were not elected via popular vote in every State.
Only 7 Presidents have won the popular vote twice.

There have only been 2 times that we have had three two term presidents in a row:

  • Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe
  • Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama

 

Obama almost became a SCOTUS justice

It is my belief that President Obama almost became a Supreme Court justice. This is because that if Hillary Clinton had become President 3 years ago, he would have been the most obvious pick to replace a resignation during Hillary Clinton’s term. It is likely RBG would have retired by now given that she is in her late 80s, to ensure her seat would not be appointed by a Republican in case Hillary Clinton were to lose, and because of this, Barack Obama would have been the obvious candidate to replace her.

Now, it is true that a President going on the Supreme Court is an unusual circumstance, but I  think this is because having a former President who is young enough to be a long term pick is very rare.

  • So, in 2017 when Hillary Clinton would have become President, Barack Obama was 56, Bill Clinton was 71, and Jimmy Carter was 93. Obama was the only President young enough to be truly worth appointing.
  • In the reality we live in with Donald Trump became President in 2017 George W. Bush was 71, and George H.W. Bush was 93, so neither were likely picks for the Supreme Court.
  • In 2009 when Obama was elected, Bill Clinton was 63, and Jimmy Carter was 85. Carter was too old to be considered, and Clinton was 10 years older than the average SCOTUS appointment. Bill Clinton could have been appointed, but President Obama of course went with Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan who are 8 and 14 years younger than him. The last SCOTUS justice who was appointed when he was over the age of 60 was Harry Blackmun in 1970. Since 1980 the average age at appointment is 52. Presidents want to appoint Justices who will last, which is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest justice when she was appointed in the last 50 years.
  • When George W. Bush entered office in 2001, the youngest living former Republican President was his father at the age of 77.
  • When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1993, the only living former Democratic President was Jimmy Carter who was already 69.
  • No living former Republican Presidents were living and under the age of 60 either in 1981 or 1989.
  • When Jimmy Carter was elected, only Nixon and Ford were still living.
  • When Nixon was elected in 1969, there were no living former Republican Presidents.
  • When John F. Kennedy became President in 1961 the only living Democratic President was Harry S. Truman who was 77.
  • When Dwight D. Eisenhower became President in 1953, the only living former Republican President was Herbert Hoover who was 79.
  • Herbert Hoover was the only living former President through the terms of both Harry S. Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
  • Calvin Coolidge was 57 when Herbert Hoover became President in 1929. William Howard Taft was on the Supreme Court.
  • In 1921 when  Warren G. Harding was elected he appointed William Howard Taft as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who was 63 years old. Taft is currently tied with Levi Woodbury as the 4th oldest Supreme Court pick in American history, behind only Charles Evan Hughes (1930-1941), Horace Harmon Lurton (1910-1914), and Lewis F. Powell Jr. (1972-1987). He was tied with Levi Woodbury (1845-1851). He was the second oldest pick at the time, and a fairly unusual choice. The only time since then where there has been a living former President young enough to be seriously considered as a SCOTUS pick was Bill Clinton in 2009.
  • There were no living former Democratic Presidents in 1913.
  • Theodore Roosevelt was the only living former President in 1909. He was 51 years old. I believe he was not picked because he had major ideological differences with William Howard Taft. This deserves an article of its own.
  • Grover Cleveland was the only living former President in 1901. He was 64. He was also a Democrat, whereas Roosevelt was a Republican.
  • Benjamin Harrison was 64 when President McKinley became President.
  • Benjamin Harrison had no living former Republican Presidents when he was elected in 1893.
  • Rutherford Hayes was alive when Grover Cleveland was elected in 1885, but he was 63.
  • Both Presidents Grant and Hayes were alive, and both were 59 years old when James Garfield became President in 1881. President Garfield was able to appoint one Justice. President Arthur was able to appoint two Justices as well, meaning that even  though these two Presidents served for only 4 years they were able to appoint a third of the Supreme Court. President Grant was going on a world tour when all three of these appointments were made, and Garfield had defeated Hayes in the primary of 1880. Party lines were not as strict as they are today, and it doesn’t take a lot of explanation to see why they would not offer a Supreme Court position to a former political rival.
  • There were no living Republican or Whig Presidents in 1869.
  • John Tyler was the only living Whig President when Abraham Lincoln entered office in 1861. He was 71 years old. The Republican Party was founded on the ashes of the Whig Party.
  • Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, and Martin Van Buren were alive when James Buchanan became President in 1857. Pierce was 53, Fillmore was 57, and Van Buren was 75. James Buchanan chose to appoint Nathan Clifford instead who was 54. Buchanan opened his Presidency by recalling all of Pierce’s appointments, so Pierce was an unlikely pick. Millard Fillmore had run against Buchanan in the 1856 election as the Know Nothing candidate, so he was also an unlikely pick for the Supreme Court.
  • After Fillmore had run as a Whig in 1852 it was unlikely Pierce would select him in his one Supreme Court pick. Martin Van Buren was 71, so an unlikely choice.
  • John Tyler was the only living Whig President during the terms of both Taylor and Fillmore. Fillmore had one pick in 1851, at which point John Tyler was 61, so an unlikely choice.
  • John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren were the only Presidents when James K. Polk was elected in 1845. Van Buren was 63 and Adams was 78, so they were unlikely choices.
  • John Tyler had no Supreme Court appointments.
  • Andrew Jackson was 70 when Martin Van Buren was elected President.
  • Andrew Jackson was a significant break from earlier Presidents, and all of his predecessors were over 60 when he was elected President.
  • All living former Presidents were over 60 when John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were elected President.

Looking now at all of American history it becomes clear that the real reason we have had only one President appointed to the Supreme Court is because it is highly unusual to have a former President of the same Party as the current President who is young enough to likely last for a significant amount of time. The only times in American history a former President has been 63 or younger, of the same party as the new President, not a former political rival of the new President, and alive are as follows:

  • Bill Clinton in 2009 at 63 would have been older than any other appointment since Nixon.
  • Calvin Coolidge in 1929 at 57.
  • William Howard Taft in 1921 was 63.
  • Ulysses S. Grant was 55 in 1877.
  • Fillmore was 57 in 1853.
  • Pierce was 53 in 1853.
  • John Tyler was 59 in 1849.

That’s the entire list.

Now just imagine… if Obama was a Supreme Court Justice he would have been able to push through many of the policies he proposed to congress which were defeated, things like:

  • Fighting voter ID laws
  • The DREAM ACT
  • High speed rail
  • Health care access
  • and many, many more policies which were defeated in Congress

Just imagine for a minute, what that would have looked like.
Splitting 5-4, Supreme Court Grants Alabama’s Request to Restore Voting Restrictions

Conservative mindset

Might makes right. If someone isn’t doing well, then it is inherently their fault.

Social redistribution is counter to both of these ideas.

Military spending backs up the idea of might makes right.

If my actions impact someone else, that means I was more mighty, hence in the right.

Civil rights are contrary to the idea of might makes right and radical self responsibility.

 

This also explains why military aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia is good and economic development aid in the form of mosquito nets is bad. Giving weapons is part of expanding our might. According to conservative logic these other countries should have built economies which build those systems. They dont necessarily need to be privately funded. Case in point: bank bailouts are good, stimulus checks are bad. Bailouts of large companies increase might of the few, who can then  continue to support your campaigns, increasing your power, which follows might makes right. Widespread stimulus spread opportunity around, reducing your overall advantage, violating might makes right.

This also explains why Republicans will NEVER propose a law to protect private retirement accounts from many ways employers fuck over their employees, such as not letting you change your retirement strategy after you set up your account. Such a law would violate personal responsibility because in the Republican worldview you should have done your research and gotten a better contract in the beginning, even if you were a 22 year old first generation college graduate. They also will continue to say social security OASI is bad, but never propose a better plan because it would be the government regulating private contracts, which violates personal responsibility.

Absentee Voting and Voting Machines

  • Blue means everyone uses Absentee voting
  • Green means everyone has the option to use absentee voting
  • Yellow means you need an excuse to use absentee voting and there is a paper trail
  • Red means you need an excuse to use absentee voting and there is no paper trail

To put this in more perspective:

  • 61.4% of representatives are from the green and blue areas
  • 22% of representatives are from the red areas
  • 17% of representatives are from the yellow areas

Most Americans probably don’t understand that the majority of us already have the right to use mail in voting. We need to exercise this right and ensure that as many Americans as possible are able to vote.

Call to action: If you know progressives in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Florida, ask them if they are registered to vote absentee. If Joe Biden wins those three states Trump will not be able to be reelected. If we work hard to make sure we drive the vote count as high as possible by ensuring every eligible voter exercises their right than it will be impossible for the Republicans to win.

The current PaddyPower betting pool state by state is betting the electoral college map will look like this:

If we vote, this can happen.

Assuming that the states which do not have a paper trail vote for Trump, and the remaining states have the results of the current PaddyPower analysis, that leaves us with the following map:


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

 

This is why I am optimistic about this election.

Sources:

75 years of peace

As of last month, Western Europe has been at peace for 75 years. I wrote a piece on my previous blog which looked at a list of wars involving France on my previous blog before I made my switch to WordPress. What this blog fails to analyze is how all of these wars are related, and I can’t find an article which really looks at the truly major wars in Europe.

To make this list, and to truly understand the history of the largest wars in European History, I am going to list only the wars which have involved England (or the UK), France, and at least one predecessor state to Germany. Any war involving these three is clearly one of the most important in the area.

  • World War II (1939-1945) 75 years
  • World War I (1914-1919) 20 years
  • Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) 99 years
  • War of the French Revolution (1793-1802) 1 year
  • American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) 10 years
  • Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) 12 years
  • War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) 8 years
  • War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720) 20 years
  • War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) 4 years
  • Nine Years’ War (1688-1697) 4 years
  • Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665-1667) 30 years
  • Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
  • Eighty Years’ War (1566-1648) 19 years
  • Italian War (1551-1559) 7 years
  • Italian War (1542-1546) 5 years
  • War of the League of Cognac (1528-1529) 13 years
  • Italian War (1521-1526) 2 years
  • War of the League of Cambrai (1508-1516) 5 years
  • First Italian War (1494-1498) 10 years
  • Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453) 45 years
  • Anglo-French War (1213-1214) 123 years

The Anglo-French War was the first war which directly involved the English, French, and at least one state of the Holy Roman Empire.

Before these wars was obviously the conquest of England by the Normans in 1066. The Vikings were raiding across all of Europe and as far as North America. This era started on 8 June 793 AD when Charlemagne was still alive. The century before Charlemagne had a series of wars where the Franks became the dominant force in modern-day France, Germany, and Benelux.

The 5th and 6th centuries were of course the era where Germanic tribes (such as the Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, etc.) were raiding across Western Europe during the fall of the Western Roman Empire after the empire was divided in 395 AD.

There were no conflicts between 395 AD and 1213 AD which involved the Germans, French, and English all at once. There were obviously many wars in this era, but they were primarily local.

Before 130 BC France was dominated by Celtic tribes known as the Gauls, and there were no empires or states as we would recognize today with a strong central state in this area.

France was the first of today’s nation states to fully form under the leadership which would rule them until the 1790s. The Middle Ages can be described with the Roman Empire holding relatively strong in modern day Greece and Turkey, the French where they are today, fighting with England who was ruled by Viking and French monarchs, Germany and most of Italy were a loose collection of city states known as the Holy Roman Empire, and until the 1200s Spain was dominated by Islam.

Through all of this time there was the idea of the restoration of the Roman Empire. France saw itself as the legal successor state to Charlemagne for fairly obvious reasons. The Holy Roman Empire also saw itself as a successor because the first Holy Roman Emperor was Charlemagne, crowned by the Pope himself on Christmas day 800. The English crown held territory on mainland Europe for most of the time from 1066 until 1837 with the Kingdom of Hanover. England continues to hold the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, and Sark as a symbol of their former continental holdings to this day. With all three having in essence claims over the entire former Roman Empire this was obviously a recipe for war.

Germans have a historic practice of dividing lands among the King’s sons when the King dies. This was one of several factors which led to a significant fracturing and rapid increase in the number of states which made up the Holy Roman Empire. It wasn’t until the Napoleonic wars that the number of microstates significantly shrank to a point that it started to look like today. With so many different states fighting with each other, particularly Brandenburg, Austria, Saxony, and Bavaria near the end of the Holy Roman Empire, war was practically inevitable.

Everything changed with Napoleon. The number of microstates significantly shrunk following the exile of Napoleon in 1815. There were only several large German speaking states in what is now modern Germany, along with the largest of them all being Austria. Prussia had significantly grown to include many lands which had formerly been part of Poland-Lithuania, outside of the borders of the Holy Roman Empire. The German Confederation existed during an era of immense social upheaval, with a balance of power between the states. It ended with a dispute between the two great houses of Hohenzollern and Hapsburg fighting a war about whose right was to rule and in 1866 the short lived German Confederation was formed. Only 5 years later they united with Baden and Bavaria to form the German Empire which lasted until World War I. The monarchs of many of the former members of the Holy Roman Empire maintained their titles and some power under the German Empire until it was disbanded at the end of World War I.

This is why if you really want to define history, Europe is in a completely different political era before and after World War I. World War II was without a doubt a direct response to World War I, and after World War II the Allies were divided between capitalist and communist. Despite animosity and proxy wars around the world (Vietnam and Korea being the most notable) Europe stayed out of international conflict on the peninsula up to the present date. The European Coal and Steel Community was formed on 23 July 1952, bringing West Germany, France, Italy, and Benelux into an economic organization. The European Economic Community was formed in 1958 which brought in Spain, Greece, Ireland, and the United Kingdom over the next 20 years. This increase in trade is a real life implementation of Complex Interdependence, which is the theory that countries which trade with one another are less likely to go to war. With the economic benefits of trading with one another, the costs of going to war is greater than any potential benefit. From this, countries are more likely to seek out diplomatic solutions to disagreements, which is what we are seeing in Europe. The European Community was formed on 1 January 1993 and the European Union was formed on 1 November 1993. It has now grown to include 27 member states, and is a major power in the world.

There are many debates which can be made about the European Union. The response to the depression was the biggest test of the European Central Bank, and there are challenges which come as a consequence of all of the most developed countries in that part of the world being members. European laws impact every part of life, including massive benefits such as the free movement of people. As a government, the powers it holds are vast, and can be used for either good or evil, like any democracy in the world. In terms of its success, it has managed to keep a strong economy in the face of turmoil, with the standard cyclical depressions like almost any advanced economy in the world (looking at you Australia). But the biggest success of the European Union has to be the lack of international wars on the peninsula for the last 75 years. This is without a doubt the longest period without war in the region in recorded history.

Even in the darkness we are in now, with protesters being shot at by police as an epidemic rages across the United States and the world, we have hit an anniversary of incredible importance. The 75th anniversary of the end of World War II is a reminder in this time of darkness that evil will always lose. Things will get better, as long as we work towards justice. This progress can be permanent, and in the long run, peace and justice can indeed win. This is worth defending and commemorating and fully understanding the full importance of this great peace.

How to not create a democracy

Three things connect the Reign of Terror, Third Reich, Great Purge, and Great Leap Forward:
1. The people in power claimed they were helping the working class by targeting the “bourgeois”.
2. Their claim of who they were targeting was absolutely bullshit. Most of the people killed in these 4 events were impoverished.
3. Not one of them led to democracy. All four led to forced labor. All were unnecessary and completely avoidable acts of pure evil.
In memory of our loved ones.
In memory of our ancestors.
Lest we forget.

Tara Reade case

Here are some notes about the Tara Reade case which I have pulled together.

I studied game theory in college, so I am extensively using it in this article.

I went back and forth on whether I should publish it, but I believe this is important to give a game theory analysis based on the facts at hand. Game theory can help us know the truth of what really happened.

  • Many progressive leaders do not believe her. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Ro Khanna, Pramlia Jayapal, and more have continued to endorse or have since endorsed Biden despite these allegations. They depend on the feminist vote in order to keep their seats and with practically every single progressive politician willing to put their entire careers on the line when they depend on the feminist vote. Every single one of them understands that if proof of Tara Reade’s accusations comes out, their political careers are over. If the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus believed that she was telling the truth, or even the possibility of it, they would know they would personally lose their next elections if they were to continue to support Biden. If there was any sliver of a doubt in their minds Tara Reade is telling the truth than they would revoke their endorsement. These are politicians who can butt heads with Biden on many issues, and often criticize him for not going as far as they like. They must be extremely confident on this one.
  • Tara Reade claimed there was a Senate report. Biden looked for the report and couldn’t find a copy, and the Secretary of the Senate (who was appointed by the Republicans, which is important) refused to look for him. There are three variables at play, here, whether Tara Reade is telling the truth, whether the report exists (which if she was telling the truth, according to her it does), and whether the Secretary of the Senate will do his job. Also, if the report exists, Tara Reade definitely has a copy, and she could choose to release it. Here is a decision tree of what we are looking at. I’m using the tools I learned when I studied game theory in college. The numbers at the end are scores
    • Tara Reade is telling the truth
      • Report exists
        • Secretary looks for it or Tara Reade releases it. This proves Tara Reade is telling the truth, and Joe Biden will have to drop out. Tara Reade 1, Joe Biden -1
        • Secretary does not look for it and Tara Reade chooses not to release it. This would mean that the Republicans are helping to cover up for Joe Biden. Also, what benefit does Tara Reade have in witholding evidence to convince people of her credibility? This is extremely unlikely. Tara Reade 0, Joe Biden 0
      • Report does not exist
        • Impossible combination, because that would mean Tara Reade was lying when she said the report exists. Tara Reade NA, Joe Biden NA
    • Joe Biden is telling the truth
      • Report exists
        • Impossible combination, because if the report exists, Tara Reade is telling the truth and Joe Biden is lying. Tara Reade NA, Joe Biden NA
      • Report does not exist
        • Secretary looks for it. This will prove Tara Reade was lying about the existence of the report and help Biden win. This is also the scenario if Tara Reade confesses she doesn’t have the report. Tara Reade -1, Joe Biden 1
        • Secretary does not look for it. The secretary refuses to confirm or deny the existence of report, and closure to the case. Tara Reade refuses to confess that she doesn’t have the report. The case will linger. It will continue to impact the Presidential election. Tara Reade 1, Joe Biden -1
  • Where the event supposedly took place was in a busy hallway with no alcoves near the offices of some of the most powerful people on the planet.
  • If Tara Reade made a report she should personally have a copy of it, which she should be able to make a scan of and send to the media. She claims it exists. Where is it? Why is she leaving us hanging assuming she is telling the truth? What does she have to gain? This makes no logical sense.
  • The early nineties was not an era free of sexual assault cases in the national news. Anita Hill spoke out against the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that she was telling the truth in any reasonable person’s mind. She was consistent, there were numerous other people who worked for Clarence Thomas when he was a judge of the DC Circuit who confirmed her claims.
  • No one else who worked for Joe Biden has come forward. Most sexual predators will have multiple people come forward. This does not disprove her, but it is highly unlikely that he would have made only one in his life.
  • The Senate Office claims that any release of material would violate The Government Employee Rights Act of 1991. There is no such section in that law.
  • When she got an interview in 2019 she said she didn’t consider the acts toward her sexualization. Why would she downright deny what she is now claiming a year before now?
  • If her allegation is true, she is potentially looking at a multi-million dollar settlement. It doesn’t make sense that she would have trouble finding a lawyer. A sexual assault lawyer who is known to donate to Trump’s campaign is bizarre.
  • High-profile sexual assault instances generally come with other reports soon after. It’s been a month and no one else has accused Biden of sexual assault. This is unusual.
  • Other former Biden staffers have trouble believing Tara Reade when interviewed.

This article from Vox details how one female reporter struggled with this story.

But also, what is this?

This behavior is at best fishy. This was just one day after Super Tuesday. If she had come out two days earlier, it could have decimated Joe Biden’s numbers and significantly changed the primary.

This response is was powerful.

If she came out in early March, or even late January with her story, she could have almost completely handed the nomination to Bernie Sanders. But NO, she is tweeting this type of bologna after Bernie Sanders had no chance of winning enough votes. If she truly supported Bernie, why wait until March 25th when he was too far behind in delegates?

This doesn’t make any sense if she is telling the truth.

Or perhaps it is all just coincidence.

Tara Reade telling the truth, report does exist Joe Biden telling the truth, report does not exist
Tara Reade confirms report’s existence R: 1

B: -1

 R: -1

B: 1
Tara Reade does not confirm the report’s existence R: 0

B: 0

 R: 1

B: -1