Politics Tara Reade

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

Awww cute rephrasing. “Woman’s right to choose” is an extremely vague term that doesn’t address the issue of abortion at face value. It’s a way for people on the left “clean up” the word abortion. Lefties absolutely love science when they get to bash climate deniers or religious people, but things get dicey when they have to talk about gender or abortion. Then things become “fluid” and they get to invent little phrases to make their fairytale science sound less like bullshit.

It's not "cute rephrasing", or cleaning it up. It's that no one uses the term "pro abortion". I don't know anyone who thinks "awesome! she had an abortion! I'm totally in favor of that!".

Saying it should be called "pro abortion" is purposely using phrasing to agitate people.
 
It's not "cute rephrasing", or cleaning it up. It's that no one uses the term "pro abortion". I don't know anyone who thinks "awesome! she had an abortion! I'm totally in favor of that!".

Saying it should be called "pro abortion" is purposely using phrasing to agitate people.

I will reconsider how I view the label, but again, I respectfully disagree. Though I do think Pro choice leaves room for much ambiguity and that is my reason for considering it pro abortion, there was never an intent to agitate anyone.

Maybe some who use the term do so for those purposes, but in my instance, there is no ill intent, its just to me the English language can really be twisted easily, so its important to be clear and concise (I fail to do so like all at times) to avoid misunderstanding like we had earlier.

Not every stance is taken in spite of the opposition. Some actually have structural foundations of which the opinions were built upon. Not just built on causing agitation to the opposition.
 
Whether the republicans were involved in the actuall vetting isn't the issue, but Obamas team found nothing. You don't think the freedom caucus was looking for anything regarding Obama or Biden? I have a very strong hunch they were.

You put way more credence in that vetting than it warrants, IMO. They found nothing, including apparently the now well documented hair sniffing and personal space invading personality quirks of Joe Biden. Unless you think Obama was briefed on that and concluded that creepy behavior couldn’t possibly be a problem for his administration.
 
You put way more credence in that vetting than it warrants, IMO. They found nothing, including apparently the now well documented hair sniffing and personal space invading personality quirks of Joe Biden. Unless you think Obama was briefed on that and concluded that creepy behavior couldn’t possibly be a problem for his administration.

The Obama campaign already came out and addressed it and stated that Biden would not have been vetted if they found anything like what Reade is alleging. Spin it any way you want, but that's the facts.
 
The Obama campaign already came out and addressed it and stated that Biden would not have been vetted if they found anything like what Reade is alleging. Spin it any way you want, but that's the facts.

Found being the operative word. That they didn’t find it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It only means they didn’t find it. Do you think Kavanaugh wasn’t vetted by Trump’s team before advancing him as a nominee for the Supreme Court? Do you think they would have put him forward if they had found something like Blasey-Ford’s accusation?

I have no opinion either way about either accusation except that it is possible either or both women are telling the truth, delusional or lying their ass(es) off. The only point I’m trying to make in prodding you on this is to recognize that our political leanings color our views to such an extent that we can be hard-wired to accept whatever “truth” fits most consistently with those leanings. I have decided for myself to push back against those tendencies. In these divided times, I wish more people would.
 
Do you think Kavanaugh wasn’t vetted by Trump’s team before advancing him as a nominee for the Supreme Court?

Considering it's not obvious that Trump actually believes women are ever assaulted, I'd say no they didn't vet him for shit. Also considering the inept people he's had in his cabinet, and close to him, I'd also say no.

Do you think they would have put him forward if they had found something like Blasey-Ford’s accusation?

Yes.
 
Found being the operative word. That they didn’t find it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It only means they didn’t find it. Do you think Kavanaugh wasn’t vetted by Trump’s team before advancing him as a nominee for the Supreme Court? Do you think they would have put him forward if they had found something like Blasey-Ford’s accusation?

I have no opinion either way about either accusation except that it is possible either or both women are telling the truth, delusional or lying their ass(es) off. The only point I’m trying to make in prodding you on this is to recognize that our political leanings color our views to such an extent that we can be hard-wired to accept whatever “truth” fits most consistently with those leanings. I have decided for myself to push back against those tendencies. In these divided times, I wish more people would.

I doubt kavanugh was vetted very well as it has been shown in many of the appointees by trump had issues and we are now 3 to 4 deep in most positions so obviously whatever vetting process they were using wasn't very good. It was probabley something like this "Do you promise to be loyal to trump and protect him at all costs?" If the answer is yes, then he's vetted.
 
It appears that my mission is futile.

Unlike you, i'm not on a mission to change anyones mind as i simply voice my opinions. Agree with them or disagree with them doesn't make any difference to me.
 
Considering it's not obvious that Trump actually believes women are ever assaulted, I'd say no they didn't vet him for shit. Also considering the inept people he's had in his cabinet, and close to him, I'd also say no.
Do yo
The term "pro-abortion" implies that all pregnancies should be aborted...it's fucking dumb.
Im Pro Choice or Pro Abortion its the same. I dont agree that implies all pregnancies should be aborted at all. Why would that even exist?
 
"Pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" are substantially different, it's not just terminology. There are many people who are against abortion personally (they would never consider one) but believe that people should be allowed to choose for themselves. That's why the position is called "pro-choice" and not "pro-abortion." The position has nothing to do with holding up abortion as an ideal, it has to do with believing that each woman has the right to decide what's best for them and their body.

So, if you use the term "pro-abortion," just be aware that you are specifically misstating the actual position.
 
Do you think Kavanaugh wasn’t vetted by Trump’s team before advancing him as a nominee for the Supreme Court?

Team Trump is not known for its interest or skill in vetting. So no, probably he wasn't.

barfo
 
Well, someone had to go look:

“psst, that's why real Americans are willing to see an investigation happen to determine how truthful the allegations are. I wouldn't blame the democrats for trying to get a court order for all the documents to be released and give a week to review them and then continue with the hearing. Why are trump supporters so quick to dismiss stuff and try and rush it through. I'd feel the same way if it was the opposite parties but here you are showing your bias by claiming the women are lying. No wonder you guys were labeled deplorables.”



And in reply to @tlongII ’s post below,
“I haven't been paying attention to a lot of the details, but from what I've seen:

1. The accusations are coming from 3-4 women.
2. The incidents occurred over 30 years ago.
3. No report of the incidents was made to law enforcement until relatively recently. In fact I'm not sure if there has been anything reported to law enforcement to date.
4. Kavanaugh has denied the incidents occurred and multiple contacts of his from the period of time also profess no knowledge of the incidents.

This is just slander in my opinion. The investigation is likely to run its course, but it is clear to me that this is stalling.”

You said:

“Your opinion or any of our opinions don't mean squat. Do an investigation and let the truth fall where it may fall.”

I think you nailed it in that last quote, but you haven’t seemed to agree with respect to Tara Reade.

I'm not sure what I have to do with any of this?
 
Do yo

Im Pro Choice or Pro Abortion its the same. I dont agree that implies all pregnancies should be aborted at all. Why would that even exist?

That's pretty much my point. It was all about grammar....also, why don't pro-life advocates refer to themselves as "anti-abortion"?

We can use whatever terms we like but it still comes down to whether a female should be able to choose if she can abort a fetus or not.
 
I think if she writes a best seller about this all the profits should be given to abuse counseling centers.....anyone sincere would not profit from trauma....multi million dollar book deals are tempting to fake accusers...that would show she's not one of those...it would serve as a lie detector test
 
I think if she writes a best seller about this all the profits should be given to abuse counseling centers.....anyone sincere would not profit from trauma....multi million dollar book deals are tempting to fake accusers...that would show she's not one of those...it would serve as a lie detector test
Thats a great idea!
 
Sorry for the misspeak. Alleged. All alleged. Everything is alleged. Same with the Donald.
What about the alleged check?
What about the alleged nondisclosure document?
What about the alleged massive amount of women complaining about Trump's sexual activities?
 
curious...have you looked into adopting any crack babies that are benefiting from being saved and orphaned? I would think you would be leading that charge as well...your billionaire candidate surely will join in and adopt many as well. that's how you can really have a humanitarian impact behind your beliefs....since you think your choices are better for humanity concerning pro choice issues.....I say this as the child of parents who were both orphaned after the great depression and separated from some of their siblings as well until they turned 18.....
 
Last edited:
According to UNICEF (the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund), there are roughly 153 million orphans worldwide.
 
curious...have you looked into adopting any crack babies that are benefiting from being saved and orphaned? I would think you would be leading that charge as well...your billionaire candidate surely will join in and adopt many as well. that's how you can really have a humanitarian impact behind your beliefs....since you think your choices are better for humanity concerning pro choice issues.....I say this as the child of parents who were both orphaned after the great depression and separated from some of their siblings as well until they turned 18.....

I certainly may have at an earlier age. I'm 63, so it's probably a bit late for that.
 
Not too late to sponsor an orphan...Oprah is your age....she has a school full of them...or donate to UNICEF which I posted above....I say this to you because you have expressed how important it is....153 million unwanted children are without mentors today...I donate to Tzi Chi Buddhist foundation for that purpose...sponsored by the Dalai Lama and Jane Goodall....I had the honor of meeting them both at one of their events...you could sponsor orphans by paying for their education and still be 63...if you want to be political about abortion...you should be proactive beyond election propaganda..just saying...maybe you are, if so my bad
I certainly may have at an earlier age. I'm 63, so it's probably a bit late for that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top