Politics Tara Reade

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
ABM said:
I just don't think she'll be going away anytime soon. We'll see.
Click to expand...
Blasey Ford went away pretty fast when no definitive proof appeared. The Republicans have made it extremely clear they don’t take sexual assault allegations seriously, especially against their own. So why are they expecting the Democrats to take them seriously? Reade’s story has more holes in it than Trump’s head. Just as many of us had to accept that Trump and Kavanaugh got away with sexual predation, the Republicans are going to have to accept that Biden is going to get away with it. But nice troll job........
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Blasey Ford went away pretty fast when no definitive proof appeared.
Click to expand...

There was an impending vote due on Kavinaugh. Conversely, the Reade story will be marinating all Spring/Summer/Fall.

 
ABM said:
I just don't think she'll be going away anytime soon. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Your track record kind of speaks for itself. You make a big noise, and then when it turns out you're completely wrong about something, you act like you were either joking or you flat out act like you never said anything.
 
julius said:
Your track record kind of speaks for itself. You make a big noise, and then when it turns out you're completely wrong about something, you act like you were either joking or you flat out act like you never said anything.
Click to expand...

Bull.
 
CupWizier said:
Thare was no video.
Click to expand...

I believe the "video" is really just the collection if clips of Biden being a little creepy with people. Because that obviously proves he's guilty of this, despite the fact that the facts don't line up consistently or accurately at all.
 
Biden needs to come out and angrily and forthrightly say:

"I like beer"

barfo
 
ABM said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elec...ld-of-harassment-in-bidens-office/ar-BB13Lnnb

1996 court document: Tara Reade told of harassment in Biden's office
Click to expand...

Yeah, but notice it says zero about him fingering her in the court document...nor did it actually accuse Biden himself of the harassment. And harassment does not = sexual harassment.

It also goes on to mention how she never mentioned sexual assault up until recently, when her initial story (which itself had holes in it) gained little traction.

it also points out how his mother (in the alleged Larry King interview) says her daughter didn't want to come forward with the allegation against him (of non consensual sexual assault) because she "respected" him too much.

Respected a man who forced his fingers into her vagina?

Her story has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
 
barfo said:
Biden needs to come out and angrily and forthrightly say:

"I like beer"

barfo
Click to expand...

Make sure he aggressively asks the people interviewing him if they too like beer.
 
julius said:
Your track record kind of speaks for itself. You make a big noise, and then when it turns out you're completely wrong about something, you act like you were either joking or you flat out act like you never said anything.
Click to expand...

Don't know how long he's been doing it, but he's been using that routine as long as I've posted here.
 
julius said:
Yeah, but notice it says zero about him fingering her in the court document...nor did it actually accuse Biden himself of the harassment. And harassment does not = sexual harassment.

It also goes on to mention how she never mentioned sexual assault up until recently, when her initial story (which itself had holes in it) gained little traction.

it also points out how his mother (in the alleged Larry King interview) says her daughter didn't want to come forward with the allegation against him (of non consensual sexual assault) because she "respected" him too much.

Respected a man who forced his fingers into her vagina?

Her story has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
Click to expand...

Jules, that same misleading link was posted yesterday or the day before...and it was just as misleading then as it is now.


"FAKE NEWS" !!!
 
julius said:
Yeah, but notice it says zero about him fingering her in the court document...nor did it actually accuse Biden himself of the harassment. And harassment does not = sexual harassment.

It also goes on to mention how she never mentioned sexual assault up until recently, when her initial story (which itself had holes in it) gained little traction.

it also points out how his mother (in the alleged Larry King interview) says her daughter didn't want to come forward with the allegation against him (of non consensual sexual assault) because she "respected" him too much.

Respected a man who forced his fingers into her vagina?

Her story has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
Click to expand...

I doubt at the time(s) she figured her story would be under such scrutiny. Nonetheless, she's a democrat, so it's not like she's doing any of this on Trump's behalf. In fact, she views Trump and Biden as the same in this regard. She's planning to not vote for President.
 
She's likely being bankrolled by the GOP...money can have a strange effect on someone's memory.
 
ABM said:
I doubt at the time(s) she figured her story would be under such scrutiny. Nonetheless, she's a democrat, so it's not like she's doing any of this on Trump's behalf. In fact, she views Trump and Biden as the same in this regard. She's planning to not vote for President.
Click to expand...

At the time Bob Packwood was being accused of sexual assault, and abuse. It's not like they would've ignored it.

And it doesn't trouble you in the least that her story has as many holes in it as it does? Or do you just like repeating the same mantra over and over because you think that makes you sound more knowledgeable about the subject?

Her story started off as harassment from the office of Biden, and that she was fired because she refused to serve drinks..but no she resigned..but no she was fired because she filed a complaint..but wait...the complaint won't have sexual harassment in it anywhere because she didn't know what to put down....and then when it came out she made it clear to the reporters that it *wasn't* about sexual assault of any sort. As did all of the people who she interviewed. They were all adamant that it was just him making her feel uncomfortable.

But then she changed it to sexual assault, and that she didn't wear panties that day (despite it being pretty much a dress code for senate workers that they had to wear panty hose if they were wearing dresses). And then she says it was in the tunnel under the senate and that no one would see her and that it was where she could see the exit...despite the fact that when the assault would've taken place there was no clear shot from where it happened to see the exit...

Look, I know you aren't interested in voting for him, but are you so insecure of your own candidate that you have to blindly stick by this pretty flimsy story?

I mean I know you can just stop posting about it and in your mind after 30 seconds, your slate has been wiped clean, but maybe, just maybe, you might want to accept that other people might have a firmer grasp on the facts than you.
 
julius said:
At the time Bob Packwood was being accused of sexual assault, and abuse. It's not like they would've ignored it.

And it doesn't trouble you in the least that her story has as many holes in it as it does? Or do you just like repeating the same mantra over and over because you think that makes you sound more knowledgeable about the subject?
Click to expand...

Look, there are no "absolute" facts, thus far. My feeling is that she really has nothing to gain in all of this. She certainly doesn't like Trump. I mean, why would she want to lie, potentially giving Trump an advantage? My belief is that she's telling the truth.
 
ABM said:
Look, there are no "absolute" facts, thus far. My feeling is that she really has nothing to gain in all of this. She certainly doesn't like Trump. I mean, why would she want to lie, potentially giving Trump an advantage? My belief is that she's telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Money makes for strange bedfellows.

How do you rectify the fact that she first stated it was harassment from the *office* of Joe Biden, to it was Joe Biden making an uncomfortable touch (that is the only believable thing), to then it was him finger banging her. And all the while her witnesses went from proclaiming it was not sexual to "ooh woops, it was sexual" the minute *AFTER* she changed her story?

Or that her version of the story doesn't jive with reality? Or that Joe has ZERO history of sexual assault? Or that McCain's team, Romney's team or any of the high ranking republicans, didn't find this shit out in 08 or 12? Or didn't find this out until it was pretty obvious he was going to become the nomination?

The mental gymnastics people have to go through to follow this story is pretty stellar.
 
julius said:
Money makes for strange bedfellows.

How do you rectify the fact that she first stated it was harassment from the *office* of Joe Biden, to it was Joe Biden making an uncomfortable touch (that is the only believable thing), to then it was him finger banging her. And all the while her witnesses went from proclaiming it was not sexual to "ooh woops, it was sexual" the minute *AFTER* she changed her story?
Click to expand...

Who knows. Perhaps she was scared. Prior to the meetoo movement, many women were afraid to come forward against men of power. That said, past allegations of various form have come forward as opposed to the current he said-she said reports we see all to often.
 
Gotta admit it's kind of amusing that one of Reade's lawyers used to work for Sputnik.

barfo
 
ABM said:
Who knows. Perhaps she was scared. Prior to the meetoo movement, many women were afraid to come forward against men of power. That said, past allegations of various form have come forward as opposed to the current he said-she said reports we see all to often.
Click to expand...

Again, the alleged event happened right in the middle of the Packwood sex scandal. The Republicans would've loved to have had it been one of one (one R vs one D). They didn't. If there was any time that it would've been welcomed, that was the time.

Past allegations, of which NONE WERE SEXUAL ASSAULT.

Her story has changed, dramatically. Usually sexual assault victims don't drastically change their stories. They don't hide who did what to them, when they do tell people. They don't all the sudden remember, after years (or even months) of saying it was non sexual, to flat out saying "oh wait, I forgot. I wasn't wearing panty hose and he stuck his hand in my vagina".

Silly me, I forgot.

Not to mention that witnesses accounts don't tend to all agree with everything and then all change their stories after the main witness changed their story.
 
julius said:
Again, the alleged event happened right in the middle of the Packwood sex scandal. The Republicans would've loved to have had it been one of one (one R vs one D). They didn't. If there was any time that it would've been welcomed, that was the time.

Past allegations, of which NONE WERE SEXUAL ASSAULT.

Her story has changed, dramatically. Usually sexual assault victims don't drastically change their stories. They don't hide who did what to them, when they do tell people. They don't all the sudden remember, after years (or even months) of saying it was non sexual, to flat out saying "oh wait, I forgot. I wasn't wearing panty hose and he stuck his hand in my vagina".

Silly me, I forgot.

Not to mention that witnesses accounts don't tend to all agree with everything and then all change their stories after the main witness changed their story.
Click to expand...

There certainly are a lot of questions to be answered. Nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, we shall see.

I found this to be an interesting article...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...-allegation-can-strengthen-the-metoo-movement
 
lmao...there's a reason why polygraphs aren't used much anymore.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Yeah, that’s proof right there.....
Click to expand...

Dude, I'm already setting up the pay-per-view! At any rate, should be a far superior event to the Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs debacle.
 
yankeesince59 said:
lmao...there's a reason why polygraphs aren't used much anymore.
Click to expand...


Well, at least she's open to it....

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...tion/202001/do-lie-detector-tests-really-work

So, does the polygraph actually work? Are the results accurate? It does work much of the time. Typically, when someone is lying, a well-trained polygraph examiner can tell. It is not 100% accurate though. The American Polygraph Association is the world's leading association dedicated to the use of evidence-based scientific methods for credibility assessment. It is an organization whose members are largely polygraph examiners. They estimate the accuracy of the polygraph to be 87%. That is, in 87 out of 100 cases, the polygraph can accurately determine if someone is lying or telling the truth.
 
This is what the American Psychological Association has to say about polygraphs, which comports with what I've generally seen about them:

Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations.

The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems highly problematic.

For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.​

https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph

There's a lot more information at the link, that was just the conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top