FadeToBlack&Gold
8647
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
Except that Manchin is basically 0, Biden is 2 or 3, and Harris is 5.
Except that Manchin is basically 0, Biden is 2 or 3, and Harris is 5.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Being pragmatic means you’re not a genuine liberal? I’ll gladly agree to disagree on that one. As for being moderate, or somewhat liberal on your scale, govtrack.us rated Harris as the most liberal senator in 2019, and fourth most in 2018. FiveThirtyEight has her voting against Trump’s policies the 7th most out of any senator. If Abrams has her beat in liberal cred by the margin you’re saying, then Abrams must be way further left than I imagined. I love someone who can be liberal as f-ck and pragmatic at the same time. Abrams may be that person, but Harris has it in spades.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
Yikes. That is a gut punch to the story
Yikes. That is a gut punch to the story
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
Detailed yet efficient takedown. Kudos to the reporter.
Yikes. That is a gut punch to the story
Detailed yet efficient takedown. Kudos to the reporter.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
With quotes and evidence...unlike the rest of the media. Even mentions what I said that Far Left media types were part of the spread after Joe trounced Bernie on Super Tuesday. The Russia part was a nice twist as was the fraud with the charity
With quotes and evidence...unlike the rest of the media. Even mentions what I said that Far Left media types were part of the spread after Joe trounced Bernie on Super Tuesday. The Russia part was a nice twist as was the fraud with the charity
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
I was lead to believe that far left media types don't exist. 
My takeaway was destroying the so called corroborating testimony. Previously I thought the reporting was that her mother calling Larry King about assault or harassment in Biden's office back in 1993. Turns out the actual transcript says nothing of the sort, and says they respect the Senator in question. Hardly sounds like something you'd say if your daughter had actually been assaulted. Next the woman who "remembered" Reade telling her in 1996 now isn't sure that actually happened and wasn't one of the original witnesses identified. Also, if true, a reporter/handler tweeting that he got her brother to revise his story after an initial statement to the press. Yikes, what a shi tshow and I will concede the point that its looking a little less likely Vlady Putin's crew is behind this since they're run a more professional con than this.
With quotes and evidence...unlike the rest of the media. Even mentions what I said that Far Left media types were part of the spread after Joe trounced Bernie on Super Tuesday. The Russia part was a nice twist as was the fraud with the charity
I was lead to believe that far left media types don't exist.
My takeaway was destroying the so called corroborating testimony. Previously I thought the reporting was that her mother calling Larry King about assault or harassment in Biden's office back in 1993. Turns out the actual transcript says nothing of the sort, and says they respect the Senator in question. Hardly sounds like something you'd say if your daughter had actually been assaulted. Next the woman who "remembered" Reade telling her in 1996 now isn't sure that actually happened and wasn't one of the original witnesses identified. Also, if true, a reporter/handler tweeting that he got her brother to revise his story after an initial statement to the press. Yikes, what a shi tshow and I will concede the point that its looking a little less likely Vlady Putin's crew is behind this since they're run a more professional con than this.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
It appears to be well sourced, but as someone in the comments points out (though that person has their own agenda), there isn’t any record of the writer. That’s kinda weird.
It appears to be well sourced, but as someone in the comments points out (though that person has their own agenda), there isn’t any record of the writer. That’s kinda weird.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
I'm OK with that, though I would note that's a small ballpark. Very few politicians compare intellectually with those three. Bill Clinton is one. Al Franken is another. There are no Republicans within shouting distance -- Sasse is probably the closest and my god he says and believes stupid things (not too many intellectual Nazis) -- and not many other Dems. Bill Foster (IL-11) is a Physics PhD from Harvard who worked at FermLabs. Jerry McNerney (CA-9) is a math PhD who was at Sandia Labs.
I'm OK with that, though I would note that's a small ballpark. Very few politicians compare intellectually with those three. Bill Clinton is one. Al Franken is another. There are no Republicans within shouting distance -- Sasse is probably the closest and my god he says and believes stupid things (not too many intellectual Nazis) -- and not many other Dems. Bill Foster (IL-11) is a Physics PhD from Harvard who worked at FermLabs. Jerry McNerney (CA-9) is a math PhD who was at Sandia Labs.
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
This is the evidence? Y’all have already posted everything he reported in that article on here, minus the slanted, super charged language this unattached reporter uses. His reporting further reinforces for me that the only difference between people believing Christine Blasey Ford, and not believing Tara Reade, is that it’s easier to paint Reade as someone of questionable character, and therefore, easier to justify waving away her accusations. Points 5-8’the mainstream media apparently don’t want me to know all have to do with Reade’s character/motives. The article y’all is saying is ballgame said Reade acted out of revenge and anger, and nothing else. How does he know that, exactly? Because, she’s vindictive. A thief. A liar about other stuff. Points 5-8 really lay out the case.
Handy’s girlfriend states that Blasey Ford is a credible victim, but not Reade. Would y’all have believed Blasey Ford if it turned out she lied about getting her PhD? Got a DUI after drinks with friends in 2004? Pleaded guilty to tax evasion in 1998? I know I would have believed her, and I would have said all that sh-t is irrelevant to the truthfulness of her claim that she was sexually assaulted, just like I’m sure y’all would have. She had no hard evidence or other witnesses to corroborate what she said she experienced. It was her word against Kavanaugh’s. But, we were more inclined to believe her because she didn’t seem to be of questionable character. She apparently wasn’t speaking up out of revenge or anger. Though, even if she had been, and explicitly stated she was going after Kavanaugh out of spite/anger, I wouldn’t have cared, and believed her, despite the lack of evidence. I mean, I suppose I’d have no issue trying to thwart someone’s pinnacle achievement if that f-cker raped me with his best friend while laughing during it.
So, until Reade comes forward and said she’s a **** liar, because X, Y, and Z, y’all don’t have much of anything, and neither does that reporter.
With quotes and evidence...unlike the rest of the media. Even mentions what I said that Far Left media types were part of the spread after Joe trounced Bernie on Super Tuesday. The Russia part was a nice twist as was the fraud with the charity
This is the evidence? Y’all have already posted everything he reported in that article on here, minus the slanted, super charged language this unattached reporter uses. His reporting further reinforces for me that the only difference between people believing Christine Blasey Ford, and not believing Tara Reade, is that it’s easier to paint Reade as someone of questionable character, and therefore, easier to justify waving away her accusations. Points 5-8’the mainstream media apparently don’t want me to know all have to do with Reade’s character/motives. The article y’all is saying is ballgame said Reade acted out of revenge and anger, and nothing else. How does he know that, exactly? Because, she’s vindictive. A thief. A liar about other stuff. Points 5-8 really lay out the case.
Handy’s girlfriend states that Blasey Ford is a credible victim, but not Reade. Would y’all have believed Blasey Ford if it turned out she lied about getting her PhD? Got a DUI after drinks with friends in 2004? Pleaded guilty to tax evasion in 1998? I know I would have believed her, and I would have said all that sh-t is irrelevant to the truthfulness of her claim that she was sexually assaulted, just like I’m sure y’all would have. She had no hard evidence or other witnesses to corroborate what she said she experienced. It was her word against Kavanaugh’s. But, we were more inclined to believe her because she didn’t seem to be of questionable character. She apparently wasn’t speaking up out of revenge or anger. Though, even if she had been, and explicitly stated she was going after Kavanaugh out of spite/anger, I wouldn’t have cared, and believed her, despite the lack of evidence. I mean, I suppose I’d have no issue trying to thwart someone’s pinnacle achievement if that f-cker raped me with his best friend while laughing during it.
So, until Reade comes forward and said she’s a **** liar, because X, Y, and Z, y’all don’t have much of anything, and neither does that reporter.
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
The way she's handled this pandemic is a pretty darn good first step to getting into the prime time, IMO.
The way she's handled this pandemic is a pretty darn good first step to getting into the prime time, IMO.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
Another reason the Nazis are frantic to tear her down.
Another reason the Nazis are frantic to tear her down.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Why is it you so inherently believe her? Is it default because you want to? Literally nothing she said can be verified and she has changed her story so much there is no credibility to it anymore.
If Trump gave this story would you believe him? Her changing narrative is very similar to his.
If Ford did things that shot her credibility yes I would question her story. If she lied and changed her story on a whim yes I would question it. Hell I can't say for sure it happened even now but I would wager my paycheck it is closer than the truth than Reade's story. When there is no evidence and it is his word versus hers it all comes down to credibility and sorry but she shot her credibility.
You are welcome to have whatever opinion you like and hold things to whatever standard you like. To me, and quite a few others, this doesn't pass the smell test. Her (apparent) lies bury it...
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
That ticket is so boring I fell asleep halfway through that sentence.
That ticket is so boring I fell asleep halfway through that sentence.
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
Something like 2-10% of sexual assault allegations turn out to be false. Reade could be one of those. If she is, I ask myself, what is she receiving in return for the public blowback she’s getting? The tarnishing of whatever reputation she may have had before? $130,000 under the table? A cabinet position in Trump’s White House if he wins in November? A position in Putin’s government? Maybe we’ll find out someday, but we haven’t yet. And, because I don’t know her personally, I attribute what she’s doing to what she tells me she’s doing this for. If she comes out tonight in a tweet and said it’s a lie, and she did it for a box of Twinkies, great, I’ll admit I was wrong in my believing her. No sweat off my back.
Biden has a long history of inappropriately touching women. Before now, none of those encounters apparently included digital penetration, but, clearly the man either doesn’t understand boundaries that well, or he’s justified in his mind that as long as he keeps his hands on shoulders, kisses on necks, etc., it’s okay, and he’ll get away with it. Many of y’all are giving him the benefit of the doubt. It’s confusing to me. It’s not like he’s been Barack Obama until now, and has never had a history of touching women inappropriately. Why he’s given a pass, based on very similar behavior, basically gateway behavior, but Reade isn’t, based on behavior that has nothing to do with sexual assault, like not paying someone some money for cleaning her horses or defrauding a charity or something, is confusing to me.
As it relates to the actual allegations of sexual assault, we have the same amount of hard evidence compiled in both the Blasey Ford allegation and Reade’s. None. Everything else is spin, and immaterial to the accusation at hand.
Something like 2-10% of sexual assault allegations turn out to be false. Reade could be one of those. If she is, I ask myself, what is she receiving in return for the public blowback she’s getting? The tarnishing of whatever reputation she may have had before? $130,000 under the table? A cabinet position in Trump’s White House if he wins in November? A position in Putin’s government? Maybe we’ll find out someday, but we haven’t yet. And, because I don’t know her personally, I attribute what she’s doing to what she tells me she’s doing this for. If she comes out tonight in a tweet and said it’s a lie, and she did it for a box of Twinkies, great, I’ll admit I was wrong in my believing her. No sweat off my back.
Biden has a long history of inappropriately touching women. Before now, none of those encounters apparently included digital penetration, but, clearly the man either doesn’t understand boundaries that well, or he’s justified in his mind that as long as he keeps his hands on shoulders, kisses on necks, etc., it’s okay, and he’ll get away with it. Many of y’all are giving him the benefit of the doubt. It’s confusing to me. It’s not like he’s been Barack Obama until now, and has never had a history of touching women inappropriately. Why he’s given a pass, based on very similar behavior, basically gateway behavior, but Reade isn’t, based on behavior that has nothing to do with sexual assault, like not paying someone some money for cleaning her horses or defrauding a charity or something, is confusing to me.
As it relates to the actual allegations of sexual assault, we have the same amount of hard evidence compiled in both the Blasey Ford allegation and Reade’s. None. Everything else is spin, and immaterial to the accusation at hand.
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
You are essentially saying all prosecutions in which there is no video or other irrefutable evidence are the same. They aren't. In both civil and criminal matters, circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming and often consists of a cumulative total of lies and inconsistencies. Credibility counts. That is whey there are rules of evidence specifically designed to allow impeaching evidence.
Of course we should allow her the same credibility respect we give Ford or other similar people. The facts and circumstances surrounding this person's story are not at all like Ford's.
You are essentially saying all prosecutions in which there is no video or other irrefutable evidence are the same. They aren't. In both civil and criminal matters, circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming and often consists of a cumulative total of lies and inconsistencies. Credibility counts. That is whey there are rules of evidence specifically designed to allow impeaching evidence.
Of course we should allow her the same credibility respect we give Ford or other similar people. The facts and circumstances surrounding this person's story are not at all like Ford's.
Last edited:
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
We should also point out that Ford didn't publically praise Kavanaugh multiple times right up until a couple of years before he got the SCOTUS nomination. Sorry but I can't ever wrap my mind around why you'd go around praising your rapist (aside from a child-parent relationship which is a different situation) years after the fact. I can certainly see and think its common that you'd stay silent, but not what a great guy the rapist is which is what Reade did for years with Biden. psych if you can't see the difference in that I don't think we can help you any further than that.
We should also point out that Ford didn't publically praise Kavanaugh multiple times right up until a couple of years before he got the SCOTUS nomination. Sorry but I can't ever wrap my mind around why you'd go around praising your rapist (aside from a child-parent relationship which is a different situation) years after the fact. I can certainly see and think its common that you'd stay silent, but not what a great guy the rapist is which is what Reade did for years with Biden. psych if you can't see the difference in that I don't think we can help you any further than that.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
What are you talking about, dude? There were corroborating stories of Kavanaugh's sexual assaults. The only reason there wasn't more documented evidence is Dump and the GOP stopped the investigation.
Please get off this kick that these are the same because both sides mumble. Reade is an open question but Ford was obviously telling the truth and got f-cked by cynical politics.
What are you talking about, dude? There were corroborating stories of Kavanaugh's sexual assaults. The only reason there wasn't more documented evidence is Dump and the GOP stopped the investigation.
Please get off this kick that these are the same because both sides mumble. Reade is an open question but Ford was obviously telling the truth and got f-cked by cynical politics.
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
I don’t need any help. It’s an internet message board. We’re having a discussion, and I enjoy the back and forth. I’m not mad or anything.
I know we have a few lawyers on here, and burd, you might be one of them. Neither of these cases would ever get to a trial, for a bazillion reasons, right? And, even if they did, neither would result in conviction. I think we’re all entirely in agreement on that.
The difference is, y’all find the circumstantial evidence convincing that Reade must be lying. That’s fine. I read that evidence, and then Reade’s telling, and other journalists’ telling, her brother’s telling, etc., and conclude the evidence isn’t convincing. We’ll agree to disagree. I know Handy said if it turned out Reade was telling the truth, that would mean Biden is “scum.” I won’t disagree with that at all. Would that change if you voted for him or not? We’re already all agreeing to overlook his past history of inappropriately touching women by voting for him in November and not thinking twice about it. It doesn’t hurt that the other guy has like quadruple the number of women who have come forward and made as bad, if not worse, allegations against him, and that he’s admitted, on tape, to broadly doing them.
I don’t need any help. It’s an internet message board. We’re having a discussion, and I enjoy the back and forth. I’m not mad or anything.
I know we have a few lawyers on here, and burd, you might be one of them. Neither of these cases would ever get to a trial, for a bazillion reasons, right? And, even if they did, neither would result in conviction. I think we’re all entirely in agreement on that.
The difference is, y’all find the circumstantial evidence convincing that Reade must be lying. That’s fine. I read that evidence, and then Reade’s telling, and other journalists’ telling, her brother’s telling, etc., and conclude the evidence isn’t convincing. We’ll agree to disagree. I know Handy said if it turned out Reade was telling the truth, that would mean Biden is “scum.” I won’t disagree with that at all. Would that change if you voted for him or not? We’re already all agreeing to overlook his past history of inappropriately touching women by voting for him in November and not thinking twice about it. It doesn’t hurt that the other guy has like quadruple the number of women who have come forward and made as bad, if not worse, allegations against him, and that he’s admitted, on tape, to broadly doing them.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?
And here's why he'll do anything to win. Anything.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">immunity from criminal prosecution <a href="https://t.co/KmT6VZ6ky0">https://t.co/KmT6VZ6ky0</a></p>— George Conway, Noble Committee Chair (@gtconway3d) <a href="https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1259997173737013249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And here's why he'll do anything to win. Anything.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">immunity from criminal prosecution <a href="https://t.co/KmT6VZ6ky0">https://t.co/KmT6VZ6ky0</a></p>— George Conway, Noble Committee Chair (@gtconway3d) <a href="https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1259997173737013249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Multiple women told stories of their own experiences being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. All believable, and all show a pattern of Kavanaugh potentially doing the same to Blasey Ford. Corroboration, if you will. Multiple women have told stories of Biden inappropriately touching them. All believable, and all show a show a pattern of Biden being capable of doing the same to Reade. Reade is the only person who has publicly accused Biden of worse. So, her story can’t fully be corroborated, because no one else has publicly stated he’s done it to them. That leaves us where we are, with Reade on an island by herself.
You can ignore my posts or put me on ignore of this is bothering you. Again, I find the the discussion interesting since I agree with about 99% of everything else y’all write about on here. The difference in opinion or thought is where I learn a lot.
- Status