Politics Tara Reade

[CupWizier]

That's debatable and dependent upon perspective. You think that Mags is hypocritical because he's all over the Tara Reade accusations, but supports a candidate who has a long history of abusive behavior towards women. Mags thinks that you're hypocritical because your reaction and level of proof demanded toward this accuser is way different than what you showed in Christine Blaise Ford's accusations about Kavanaugh.

He wasn't even in the forum during the Kavanaugh hearing. I was against kavanaugh mainly because of his policies and his demeanor. That hearing was a similar republican rigged hearing like the impeachment hearings where evidence was suppressed and witnesses prohibiting from testifying.

 

[barfo]

Biden isn't indicted on anything and so far there is no "process" that will run its course.

Sure there is. The process is that the media investigates, we chat about it, and eventually everyone decides what they think about it and the issue fades from view (or Biden fades from view, if enough people decide they don't believe him).

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

Orion Bailey said: ↑
I think the confusion is, I do'nt see, at least here anyhow, anyone really going after Biden for this. I see them going after the dems pushing the #MeToo movement to be consistent.

Ive seen a couple Right leaners say Biden is innocent until proven guilty.

Chris Craig said: ↑
If Biden is guilty he should step down, as should Trump. Biden was no where near my first choice. I would be glad if some else got the nomination.

Bernie is 2nd, and he should get it, but he won't. The delegates that voted for Biden will go to another centrist like Amy Klobuchar or maybe...maybe Warren.

If Biden is on the ticket, will you vote for him over Trump?

Sedatedfork said: ↑
Biden should step aside. I don’t support him, but will hold my nose and vote for him if it’s either him or Trump. I’m disappointed that dems have not addressed this.
yankeesince59 said: ↑
I seriously doubt that Jesus Christ will ever be running for POTUS.

Joe was not my guy but if it comes down to him vs Trump in November, my choice will be easy.

This is much the same as when Trump rasn against Hilary and what the Reps said.... And got and continue to get blasted for it.

Trump should drop out, but if he doesnt, anyone but Clinton. But now with the rolse reversed, its the same, regardless of the #metoo movement.

UncleCliffy'sDaddy said: ↑
If Biden really did what he is accused of he should most definitely resign. But as with Kavanaugh, it was many years ago and there is NO (real) proof. I am genuinely sorry for Ms. Reade, but she should have spoken out years ago. Now all she is is a political weapon. It’s way too convenient......and all too familiar. Men in power (generally speaking) have always taken advantage of women. As with so many of these allegations, they only surface when it is politically expedient. After Trump and Kavanaugh getting free passes for this kind of behavior, the Republicans have no moral high ground whatsoever. They should shut the fuck up and sit down. I’m not a Biden fan but ousting Trump is the highest priority this country has. And shame on us all for allowing us to reach this nadir.

Again, same narrative. Anyone but Trump, regardless of the #Metoo movement.

This is the same philosophy some republicans had regarding Hilary. But the Republicans didn't push the #metoo movement, so shouldn't be held to the same standard.

The narrative that you just quoted is anyone but Trump, regardless of the #metoo contradiction.

This is what the republicans iv e seen have been pointing out.

 

[e_blazer]

Sure there is. The process is that the media investigates, we chat about it, and eventually everyone decides what they think about it and the issue fades from view (or Biden fades from view, if enough people decide they don't believe him).

barfo

Pretty sure that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has never applied in the long and colorful American history of trial by the press.

 

[CupWizier]

Biden isn't indicted on anything and so far there is no "process" that will run its course.

Where did i say Biden had been indicted? There also is a process right now as people have been investigating the allegations and i have no doubt trump, barr and the administration is digging as deep as they can

 

[Orion Bailey]

And one of those is making numerous negative attacks on Biden. If one truly believes innocence until proven guilty then they shouldn't continue to make posts alluding to his guilt and let the process run its course.

Negative attacks based on Tara Reade or based on other things?

There is a difference.

 

[e_blazer]

He wasn't even in the forum during the Kavanaugh hearing. I was against kavanaugh mainly because of his policies and his demeanor. That hearing was a similar republican rigged hearing like the impeachment hearings where evidence was suppressed and witnesses prohibiting from testifying.

Fair point that Mags wasn't posting here during the Kavanaugh debate and probably didn't see what was posted here. I should have said that those on the right see the response by the left this time around as totally inconsistent, and therefore hypocritical with, what they were saying about a woman's right to be believed during the Kavanaugh issue.

 

[yankeesince59]

Fair point that Mags wasn't posting here during the Kavanaugh debate and probably didn't see what was posted here. I should have said that those on the right see the response by the left this time around as totally inconsistent, and therefore hypocritical with, what they were saying about a woman's right to be believed during the Kavanaugh issue.

I don't believe anyone said anything about a "woman's right to be believed"...big difference in the right to be heard vs the right to be believed because to be believed, there must be a certain level of credibility if not actual hard physical proof or witnesses.

There really shouldn't be much of a comparison between the credibility of Ford vs Reade.

 

[e_blazer]

Where did i say Biden had been indicted? There also is a process right now as people have been investigating the allegations and i have no doubt trump, barr and the administration is digging as deep as they can

You were talking about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. While a nice sentiment that I wish more people applied in their views on the news, it's only directly applicable in criminal proceedings. And by process, I generally think of that in terms of a formal proceeding that can result in a conclusion about guilt or innocence. I don't think that the media "investigations" and endless debate in the twitterverse constitutes process.

 

[CupWizier]

Fair point that Mags wasn't posting here during the Kavanaugh debate and probably didn't see what was posted here. I should have said that those on the right see the response by the left this time around as totally inconsistent, and therefore hypocritical with, what they were saying about a woman's right to be believed during the Kavanaugh issue.

And i told you what my position was for kavanaugh. Quit trying to make this about me and let mags defend himself.

 

[e_blazer]

There really shouldn't be much of a comparison between the credibility of Ford vs Reade.

True. Ford couldn't remember details about where the "assault" occurred, who was present, etc. She had no corroboration such as supporting comments from friends that she told about the incident at the time. She is a liberal woman who presumably had a personal objection to another conservative on the Supreme Court. Reade remembers the specifics about what she alleges, has corroboration, and is a Democrat who doesn't want Trump to be reelected.

 

[e_blazer]

And i told you what my position was for kavanaugh. Quit trying to make this about me and let mags defend himself.

I'm not trying to make this about you, except perhaps to see if I can crack through your denial and get you to admit that maybe you might be just a touch hypocritical in your views. As I said at the start, it's pretty much a universal failing. And Mags is just as guilty of that as anyone.

 

[barfo]

You were talking about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. While a nice sentiment that I wish more people applied in their views on the news, it's only directly applicable in criminal proceedings. And by process, I generally think of that in terms of a formal proceeding that can result in a conclusion about guilt or innocence. I don't think that the media "investigations" and endless debate in the twitterverse constitutes process.

So is your point that we should just drop the subject? Since there is no way he'll be proven guilty. Confused.

barfo

 

[CupWizier]

You were talking about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. While a nice sentiment that I wish more people applied in their views on the news, it's only directly applicable in criminal proceedings. And by process, I generally think of that in terms of a formal proceeding that can result in a conclusion about guilt or innocence. I don't think that the media "investigations" and endless debate in the twitterverse constitutes process.

What you consider a process might be different than mine, but many investigations start with the media reporting things and have even lead to trials and prosecutions, so yes, i consider it part of the process

 

[CupWizier]

I'm not trying to make this about you, except perhaps to see if I can crack through your denial and get you to admit that maybe you might be just a touch hypocritical in your views. As I said at the start, it's pretty much a universal failing. And Mags is just as guilty of that as anyone.

Never said i was innocent of never being hypocritical but there are many levels and mags is in the upper level just in this thread alone. Deny it if you want, but i am very comfortable with my opinion.

 

[e_blazer]

So is your point that we should just drop the subject? Since there is no way he'll be proven guilty. Confused.

barfo

Just pointing out that there hasn't ever been a standard around here or in the media of "innocent until proven guilty" so maybe it's not a valid point to try to tag on those who oppose your views. All I'm suggesting is there could be a little less discussion of the other side's "hypocrisy" and a little more on the subject itself.

 

[e_blazer]

Never said i was innocent of never being hypocritical but there are many levels and mags is in the upper level just in this thread alone. Deny it if you want, but i am very comfortable with my opinion.

Most of us are, and that's usually a problem.

 

[CupWizier]

Most of us are.

Good. Can we move on now?

 

[e_blazer]

Good. Can we move on now?

Sure, but see my edit.

 

[barfo]

Just pointing out that there hasn't ever been a standard around here or in the media of "innocent until proven guilty" so maybe it's not a valid point to try to tag on those who oppose your views. All I'm suggesting is there could be a little less discussion of the other side's "hypocrisy" and a little more on the subject itself.

Ah, ok. Then we agree.

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

Just pointing out that there hasn't ever been a standard around here or in the media of "innocent until proven guilty" so maybe it's not a valid point to try to tag on those who oppose your views. All I'm suggesting is there could be a little less discussion of the other side's "hypocrisy" and a little more on the subject itself.

This right here.

 

[yankeesince59]

True. Ford couldn't remember details about where the "assault" occurred, who was present, etc. She had no corroboration such as supporting comments from friends that she told about the incident at the time. She is a liberal woman who presumably had a personal objection to another conservative on the Supreme Court. Reade remembers the specifics about what she alleges, has corroboration, and is a Democrat who doesn't want Trump to be reelected.

Nope...actually, Ford did have corroboration.

Also, Ford went to the FBI, Reade did not...Ford was sworn in under oath, Reade probably never will be.

Not to mention that Ford was credible while there are multiple compelling holes in Reade's story.



It's really no contest.



Edited; (in order to make some people happy)

 

[julius]

Nope...Ford went to the FBI, Reade did not...Ford is a highly educated individual, Reade is not very sharp or convincing...Ford was sworn in under oath, Reade probably never will be.

Not to mention that Ford was credible while there are multiple compelling holes in Reade's story.



It's really no contest.

I am not saying that Reade wasn't made to feel uncomfortable, but I think her story has changed over time, as has her believability.

The more it's been exposed (pardon the pun), it has become less stable of a story, and she becomes less of a credible witness for herself. It's similar to how Stormy Daniels attorney came off really flaky and about as believable as Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Obviously it's difficult to corroborate certain accusations, but I need something more than what she's done so far.

Basically, she's telling us that "I told people, and I don't remember what words I used on a report I might or might not have made, so don't be surprised if it totally doesn't back up what I said. but remember, I have friends who I told this to, so that's what counts. Ignore that I made a different claim in the past, and now have made it more salacious."

If he did it, he doesn't deserve to run. BUT the standard was already set that sexual assault allegations don't matter to people.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Ford is a highly educated individual, Reade is not very sharp

Doesn't Reade have a Juris Doctorate? That doesn't qualify as "highly educated"?

 

[yankeesince59]

I am not saying that Reade wasn't made to feel uncomfortable, but I think her story has changed over time, as has her believability.

The more it's been exposed (pardon the pun), it has become less stable of a story, and she becomes less of a credible witness for herself. It's similar to how Stormy Daniels attorney came off really flaky and about as believable as Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Obviously it's difficult to corroborate certain accusations, but I need something more than what she's done so far.

Basically, she's telling us that "I told people, and I don't remember what words I used on a report I might or might not have made, so don't be surprised if it totally doesn't back up what I said. but remember, I have friends who I told this to, so that's what counts. Ignore that I made a different claim in the past, and now have made it more salacious."

If he did it, he doesn't deserve to run. BUT the standard was already set that sexual assault allegations don't matter to people.

^^^ What he said.

 

[yankeesince59]

Doesn't Reade have a Juris Doctorate? That doesn't qualify as "highly educated"?

No, not unless you wanna compare a lawyers degree to someone who was a Stanford Professor, or unless you wanna assert that all degrees are as equally compelling.

 

[RR7]

No, not unless you wanna compare a lawyers degree to someone who was a Stanford Professor, or unless you wanna assert that all degrees are as equally compelling.

It seems silly to say someone with a J.D. isn't highly educated.

 

[yankeesince59]

It seems silly to say someone with a J.D. isn't highly educated.

Educated in what?...a common law degree?...yeah, nobody has one of those. I've known tons of people with "degrees" that were as dumb as dirt.

My comment stands, Ford has has a "higher" education that Reade...and Reade's story is laughable.


I do however find it funny that now 2 different people have concentrated on only one facet of my post instead of the actual crux of the whole of its meaning.

 

[RR7]

Ok

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I do however find it funny that now 2 different people have concentrated on only one facet of my post instead of the actual crux of the whole of its meaning.

I find it funny that you have such difficulty admitting that you made a silly comment--but whatevs.