all of them had about as much substance to it as the allegations against Biden. Yet we only took those 25 seriously lmao

and Biden inappropriately touches women in public events

I do think it's important to account for context and shifts like this. 94 was nearly 30 years ago. IIRC Obama was against gay marriage when he ran in 08. People's ideals and understandings change. I think it's important to judge people based on the person they currently are and the views they currently hold instead of those they once held. Just make sure you keep that same energy universally

Ok and every woman who has ever called him out for that has insisted that it was never sexual.

The fact that you’re even trying to compare that to Trump bragging about how he gets away with assaulting women really says all we need to know about you.

I suggest you read more deeply if you truly believe the allegation against Biden is anywhere near quantifiable to those against Trump

You are not thinking straight if you think the evidence of sexual misconduct from trump vs from Biden is comparable

except biden has no interest in apologizing for it, has no interest in coming to terms with how it was racist, and no interest in doing anything meaningful to rectify the situation. we have no evidence that anything he says now regarding policy is born out of any sort of reconciliation or remorse for past positions, and not political expediency

"He advocated for black incarceration BUT at least it helped women"

@BA you made a friend in here

Trump is just a talking head, biden is really bout it

You found another buddy to post right wing talking points to own the libs

Senator Biden called Obama “the first clean African American candidate”
cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama

And then even Jesse Jackson defended him and said that people took it out of context.

You’re really running out of material...

well said. I agree

Part of the problem is him still defending signing it. The results were disastrous, as OP admits. Not recognizing that is a red flag.

He's defended certain elements, he's acknowledged critiques as legitimate, and continued his opposition to the 3 strikes amendment.

It's not nuanced enough to simply state that he's defended it.

We know how his criminal justice reform platform is shaping up this year and it's clearly evident of a shift.

And any idea along the lines of 'well we don't know if that's out of righteousness or just political gamesmanship' is an absurd justification for casting doubt.

We know how his criminal justice reform platform is shaping up this year and it's clearly evident of a shift.

His VP is a prosecutor lol.

Has no bearing on what the Dems platform is.

And again, your statement is mighty reductive.

His platform has little bearing on what will happen under his presidency. Proof being the administration he was part of whose laurels he is propping himself up with.

That isn't a valid argument though against his platform. We don't have the foresight to know what he will or will not implement. All we can go off is that it exists and contains positives.

I don't know what we're expecting otherwise at this stage. The same argument by your criteria could be levied at every president and every candidate there's been all the world over. It doesn't achieve anything.

He's been in national politics since the early 70s. His own running mate characterized his early time in the senate as sandbagging desegregation. His entire political career is context and trajectory pointing towards his presidency.

I have a hard time believing you don't know this.

Politics and people are not static.

Biden did not oppose segregation.

And why are you acting like Kamala Harris is the first politician to have cultivated an argument to favour their ends at the time?