The right-winger's propagating this nonsense are contemptible. The stupid ones who haven't even read the allegations are one thing, the ones who know it's nonsense and do it anyways because, "they do it to us," are weaklings. It also makes if harder for legitimate claims to be taken seriously when partisan hacks pretend to take this seriously.
Link: https://quillette.com/2020/05/14/tara-reades-dubious-claims-and-shifting-stories-show-the-limits-of-believewomen/
They are relying on the Right being more moral on this than they are and backing down. But, it looks like the there are enough people on the Right who are willing to act like the Left, so this will keep going, regardless. (And, maybe the allegations are true.)
Agree that promulgating fake claims for political purpose is bad. The Left did it with Kavanaugh, and they did it with Trump (although I recognize that Trump had affairs and sexual interactions with groupies). They don't want the Right to do it.
Note that I don't know if her claims are not valid. I haven't bothered to inform myself on them, since they won't change how I vote. I just love the theater of the Left being hoisted on their petard. And, after all, I've known Biden was a creeper for a long time now...there is quite a lot of video of his behavior with women. No "penetration" video, but lost of video related to her groping allegations. Lots of accusations against Trump as well, of course.
But, per the Left, we really need a national discussion on this. That is what they want. That is what they should get.
because of his stand on Kavanaugh not long ago, he deserves it because of consequence of contradictions he is saying today. It's a slap in the face of Biden and his supporters if they still have once of Self-conscious. Everything he wrote before the last part is just old school nonsense in the eyes of today's trauma-informed investigation which is the narrative of today's left on any sexual attack claim on the people of right.
(no message)
(no message)
also want to support Biden. However it is not the dilemma for the partisan hacks here and certainly not for the MSM in general.
Your incorrect if you think we are being hypocrites. In fact, you are dead wrong. We want exactly the same treatment for Joe that he recommended and personally gave to Brett Kavanaugh.
As Chris told me, this is not about a court of,law dispensing Justice. This is a JOB INTERVIEW. We need to hear from the accused and Biden, and let them be questioned.
It is the Left who are hypocrites for treating g this differently. I would have been fine with neither being treated this way, but it’s their rules now.
Do you want to have investigative hearings for Presidential candidates?
Just the GOP and Democrat finalists? Or all Primary candidates?
Confined to just sex allegations? Or can we have hearings re their health and financial history?
Witnesses? Productions of documents? No executive privilege for incumbents?
Who holds the hearings? Democrats for GOP candidates? Republicans for Democrat candidates?
How long would preparing for the hearings take? How long would the hearings take?
.....
Or should we just have elections and let the people cast their ballots as they deem fit?
(no message)
(no message)
then we can watch the dishonest manipulative grifter who has accused Biden.
Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/manipulative-deceitful-user-tara-reade-194333122.html
But, yes, let's put all accusers through the Democrat way of handling these things...even the ones who accuse Republicans. Pretty soon, there will be no accusers of politicians. I assume our leaders would enjoy that.
(no message)
Did we have hearings letting Trump’s TWO DOZEN accusers be questioned?
I don’t believe you are this dense.
I'm guessing that there will be hearings about things like this in the future. You guys just didn't think of it when Trump was running...you probably thought he was going to lose.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
and every other allegation that comes up between now and then. I figure more are coming. Why wouldn't they be coming?
Think that she and Biden should absolutely be investigated on the criminal side of this case, but no matter what, just as with Blasey Ford, the accuser needs to be heard. The woman must be believed. Those were Joe’s words.
This is a job interview with the American people, and we need to hear both sides from them in person. You taught us this.
Now, please stop attacking a proclaimed rape victim for bringing her case forward, especially when there is clear evidence that she made mention of this to multiple people when it happened (unlike Blasey Ford).
accused and where I attack Reade.
You keep inventing my posts.
(no message)
they would not investigate. Wray said so and they was the end of it. BOOM
Also, it was the Senate Judiciary Committee who requested her medical records not the FBI.
BOOM AGAIN.
Please stop inventing stories and relaying them as facts.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Words you will never hear Trump utter.
Tara Reade allegation: Done and Dusted.
(no message)
My favorite is Chris's claim that no one commits only one sexual assault.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Or, at the very least, you knew what he meant.
I’ve consistently said you are one of the best few posters on this board. Don’t go Baron or Cole on us.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Google is your friend.
Google is your friend.
Guess you are good with that.
Stop being tedious.
I once had to stop a guy from massaging my daughter as she tried to pull away...just like Biden does in these videos. It's not ok.
continue to defend and deflect for him.
I’m not defending Biden. The woman may be telling the truth. Given who he is up against, a serial sexual assaulter, it doesn’t matter for my vote.
I don't defend Trump on non-policy issues as much as I point out the hypocrisy of those who attack him, who want in uneven playing field in the game of politics, so they can accuse him (or his appointees, or his family) of things that are offlimits to themselves. I also attack those who abuse our constitutional form of government to gain their political goals.
To the extent I defend Trump (actually defend him, as opposed to opposing his opposition), it is to defend his policies, which are, on the whole, much better for our nation than policies that Biden's handlers would implement.
Set side Russia (hoax or not), set aside tweets, set aside sexual harrassment: Trump's policies are better for this nation than those that Biden's handlers would implement.
Not only are his policies on protectionism, isolationism, and xenophobia wrong, he’s also manifestly unfit for the office. As long as he gives you judges, you don’t care. You have never once criticized him on anything of substance that I can recall other than on what he says, which you dismiss as irrelevant. Whenever his personal behavior comes up, your deflect shuffle is out in full force. You are a toady for him in all respects.
You talk about "whataboutism," but that is exactly my point. I use whataboutism not as a defense of Trump's actions, but to point to the hypocrisy of his attackers, which is exactly what I said above, to which you then said "bullshit" and then proceeded to point out that I was accurate. Very strange, Frank. You work very hard to misunderstand things just so you can make it look like you are winning an argument...when in fact we are agreeing. Talk about a "shuffle." You have it down pat.
Now, as to his policies, which the body of your post discusses: We just disagree on that...which is also what I said above. Of course I like his policies. They are, for the most part, good for the United States, so of course I defend those. Seriously, reread my post.
Here is an example: You said, "You have never once criticized him on anything of substance that I can recall other than on what he says, which you dismiss as irrelevant." That is right in line with what I said above, and yet you then said, "Bullshit" and then you proceed to say essentially what I said about the substance/policies (albeit a little more emphatically).
You project so much of your derangement into my posts. You would do much better if you just read the words, and take them at face value. The "shuffle" accusations are usually raised by you when you have misunderstood fundamental points I've made, because you have an emotional need to put me in the cultist/toady category, when intellectually, you really know that I am not. Whatever.
You don’t use whataboutisim to point out hypocrisy. You use it to defend and deflect, and then pointing out hypocrisy becomes your excuse when called on it.
For you to suggest that I agree with you is completely absurd. I think you are a toady and equivocalizer of the worst kind. You constantly defend the indefensible committed by those you support by pointing to allegedly similar things done by people you oppose. You never criticize those on your side for even their worst excesses as long as someone on the other side may have done something of a like nature. You fall back on a claim of pointing out hypocrisy when called on it. That’s what I think of your arguments and we don’t agree at all.
You don't want to agree with certain people, and it puts you at a tremendous disadvantage, because it takes you a while to figure out their true point.
And the excuse that you are some abstract foe of hypocrisy is ludicrous. It’s called pretext. The more you deny the obvious motive, the funnier it is.
(no message)
(no message)