new Reade/Biden thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story won't go away for Biden. The fact that there are over 160 pages between the two threads prove that there is a double standard for the left.

Hahaha. You bump this thread several times a day to whine about supposed left-wing hypocrisy. This forces someone else to point out all the troublesome FACTS about Reade’s changing story.
There’s been no new news for several weeks. Just you bumping the thread.

You can't use the page count as an indictment. The noise-to-signal ratio on both threads is extremely high. The first thread was filled with 50-some pages of people trying to rehash the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. There is a HUGE amount of repetition and from the writing styles, there are not as many distinct posters as the volume would suggest. Just a lot of people, especially nay-sayers that keep trying to revive the thread every few days just to lob the same articles and to try and keep this fading story in the public eye. The news cycle has already resigned this story to the B-list of stories and it is rapidly heading for the C-list, unless she can come up with something truly credible and with corroboration or confirmation. So far, none of the story has had any sticking strength.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story won't go away for Biden. The fact that there are over 160 pages between the two threads prove that there is a double standard for the left.

Hahaha. You bump this thread several times a day to whine about supposed left-wing hypocrisy. This forces someone else to point out all the troublesome FACTS about Reade’s changing story.
There’s been no new news for several weeks. Just you bumping the thread.

You can't use the page count as an indictment. The noise-to-signal ratio on both threads is extremely high. The first thread was filled with 50-some pages of people trying to rehash the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. There is a HUGE amount of repetition and from the writing styles, there are not as many distinct posters as the volume would suggest. Just a lot of people, especially nay-sayers that keep trying to revive the thread every few days just to lob the same articles and to try and keep this fading story in the public eye. The news cycle has already resigned this story to the B-list of stories and it is rapidly heading for the C-list, unless she can come up with something truly credible and with corroboration or confirmation. So far, none of the story has had any sticking strength.

+3




🤡

[Anonymous]

More conflicting accounts and outright lies from Reade in this giant CNN piece. Here are a few big ones:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/19/politics/tara-reade-biden-allegation/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

I mean... the articles suggest she is a pretty unpleasant person. This doesn’t necessarily mean nothing happened. Is she a perfect credible source? Absolutely not. Does that prove Biden is innocent? Absolutely not. I feel a bit yucky about the Politico article because it very much follows the tradition of dig up whatever muck you can find on the female accuser wether it has direct relevance to the accusation or not and is precisely why women hesitate in coming forward. Do only perfect angelic women have the right to complain about harassment? How does trauma shape people’s behavior and clash with what we expect of them as a society?

Exactly this. We’ve been lectured to for years about how a woman’s background, personality, sexuality, etc. should have no bearing when it comes to a sexual assault accusation. Plenty of movies have been made about this very thing, driving home the fact that digging up sordid details of a woman’s past in order to discredit her is the lowest thing you can do. Yet here we have the very same people doing exactly that - trying to discredit this woman’s sexual assault accusation because of her sketchy past.

Amazing how the narrative changes when the accused is a Democrat.

+1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More conflicting accounts and outright lies from Reade in this giant CNN piece. Here are a few big ones:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/19/politics/tara-reade-biden-allegation/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

With everything that’s come out, I think it’s pretty clear Reade is suffering from some serious mental health issues, and perhaps had some kind of break in or around 2018 when the pattern of behavior seems to have taken a severe turn. Whatever the truth is, I hope she can get the help she needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

DP. You seem to have comprehension problems. Or you hate women, it’s hard to tell.

The point you don’t want to understand is that a serial liar—a serial liar with an ever-changing story, no less—is very different from a woman who was attacked while amusing herself by drinking or dancing.

Stop with the sleazy and dishonest misrepresentation of victims advocates. They don’t claim that serial liars should automatically be believed. They do advocate for women who were amusing themselves innocently, say at a bar. If you can’t see the difference, you’re a poor excuse for a human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

DP. You seem to have comprehension problems. Or you hate women, it’s hard to tell.

The point you don’t want to understand is that a serial liar—a serial liar with an ever-changing story, no less—is very different from a woman who was attacked while amusing herself by drinking or dancing.

Stop with the sleazy and dishonest misrepresentation of victims advocates. They don’t claim that serial liars should automatically be believed. They do advocate for women who were amusing themselves innocently, say at a bar. If you can’t see the difference, you’re a poor excuse for a human being.

Nope. Wrong. Serial liars can also be sexually assaulted. That you're denying that only makes *you* look sleazy, dishonest, and women-hating. Oh, and a poor excuse for a human being. Gotta cover all those clichés.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

DP. You seem to have comprehension problems. Or you hate women, it’s hard to tell.

The point you don’t want to understand is that a serial liar—a serial liar with an ever-changing story, no less—is very different from a woman who was attacked while amusing herself by drinking or dancing.

Stop with the sleazy and dishonest misrepresentation of victims advocates. They don’t claim that serial liars should automatically be believed. They do advocate for women who were amusing themselves innocently, say at a bar. If you can’t see the difference, you’re a poor excuse for a human being.

Nope. Wrong. Serial liars can also be sexually assaulted. That you're denying that only makes *you* look sleazy, dishonest, and women-hating. Oh, and a poor excuse for a human being. Gotta cover all those clichés.

Sure, serial liars can be raped. But when their rape stories themselves appear to be riddled with lies, nobody is “obligated” to believe them. You need to stop pretending that’s how it works.

You’re trying to undermine legitimate rape victims and for political reasons. That’s why you’re a sleazy woman hater.

[Anonymous]

This piece explains pretty well that right-wing propaganda around Reade and Eva Murry is about undermining the women’s movement and legitimate rape victims just as much as it’s about undermining Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/tara-reade-believe-all-women.html?searchResultPosition=2

In fact, “Believe All Women” does have an asterisk: *It’s never been feminist “boilerplate.” What we are witnessing is another instance of the right decrying what it imagines the American women’s movement to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

DP. You seem to have comprehension problems. Or you hate women, it’s hard to tell.

The point you don’t want to understand is that a serial liar—a serial liar with an ever-changing story, no less—is very different from a woman who was attacked while amusing herself by drinking or dancing.

Stop with the sleazy and dishonest misrepresentation of victims advocates. They don’t claim that serial liars should automatically be believed. They do advocate for women who were amusing themselves innocently, say at a bar. If you can’t see the difference, you’re a poor excuse for a human being.

Nope. Wrong. Serial liars can also be sexually assaulted. That you're denying that only makes *you* look sleazy, dishonest, and women-hating. Oh, and a poor excuse for a human being. Gotta cover all those clichés.

And here we have the standard problem that is destroying our current system. Both parties are getting polarized and extreme. Ideologues deal in black and whites and do exactly what you are both doing, lambast and criticize someone who doesn't believe fully in what you argue.

You have the progressive ideologues who have always insisted that #BelieveAllWomen means that you believe their story, don't question their background, motives, actions. They blindly believe any accusation; they believe that in order to protect all victims, you always believe the victim. They don't care about the collateral damage of the innocent who were falsely accused. They think that's the price that men have to pay to insure the protection of the victims. If left to them, the Duke lacrosse team would have had their lives destroyed by Crystal Magnum.

Then you have the other side, the ultra-conservative idealogues who believe that you should grill the victim to the point that she questions whether her assault actually occurs. If a woman can't withstand questioning that borders on Geneva violations, and still maintain her story, then she must be lying. They feel that a victim needs to be absolutely angelic with no flaws in her past before she becomes credible. They don't care if victims are destroyed and need a 100% case before an accuser will have to face the music.

Frankly, as the Democratic primary showed, the moderate/Independent category is now the largest segment of the voting public. More and more of the country is being driven away by the progressive and ultra-conservatives. Estimates are the the exteme wings are each now less than 30% of voting citizens and the moderate middle is well over 40%. And the moderates want a middle gray zone that is neither black nor white. Most of the middle things that women should be heard, respectfully investigated and each situation should be handled on a case-by-case basis on the merits of the arguments. My interpretation (and others may feel differently) is that her background, motives, what she was wearing do not matter. However, questioning her integrity, whether she has a history of lying, deceit and dishonesty is extremely valid and relevant. Whether her story is only her testimony in a he-said-she-said story or whether she has external corrobation and confirmation are relevant.

I think that the country is sick and tired of the partisan politics that began with the rise of the Tea Party starting in 2009 and the death of the moderate wings of both parties that happened in the 2010 midterms. That was when Congress, which had only some functionality became literally a do-nothing Congress. Now, with the exception of emergencies like the current one, only a party that has control of both chambers can get anything done and anything they do get done is extremely partisan and lopsided and only benefits that party's constituency. We need a return to compromise politics and that is not happening until we get certain key politicians out of office, namely Trump, McConnell and Pelosi, all of whom are major parts of our current problems. None of them care about actually getting business done for the country and the citizens. They only care about advancing the power of their respective parties. Party politics needs to be replaced with national politics and return to government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And here we have the standard problem that is destroying our current system. Both parties are getting polarized and extreme. Ideologues deal in black and whites and do exactly what you are both doing, lambast and criticize someone who doesn't believe fully in what you argue.

You have the progressive ideologues who have always insisted that #BelieveAllWomen means that you believe their story, don't question their background, motives, actions. They blindly believe any accusation; they believe that in order to protect all victims, you always believe the victim. They don't care about the collateral damage of the innocent who were falsely accused. They think that's the price that men have to pay to insure the protection of the victims. If left to them, the Duke lacrosse team would have had their lives destroyed by Crystal Magnum.
...

Except that "Believe All Women" was NEVER the progressive/liberal/democratic/feminist mantra. Conservatives have tried to twist slogans like "Believe Women" and "Listen to all women" to attempt to kill two birds--Biden and feminist values around rape victims--at the same time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/tara-re...en.html?searchResultPosition=2

In fact, “Believe All Women” does have an asterisk: *It’s never been feminist “boilerplate.” What we are witnessing is another instance of the right decrying what it imagines the American women’s movement to be.

Spend some mind-numbing hours tracking the origins of “Believe All Women” on social media sites and news databases — as I did — and you’ll discover how language, like a virus, can mutate overnight. All of a sudden, yesterday’s quotes suffer the insertion of some foreign DNA that makes them easy to weaponize. In this case, that foreign intrusion is a word: “all.”
...
“It’s a very interesting rabbit hole,” Pablo Morales Henry, digital archivist at Harvard University’s Schlesinger Library, which maintains a collection of more than 30 million MeToo-related tweets, told me.
...
Type in #BelieveAllWomen for 2017, when the #MeToo movement took off in October, and you get several dozen references, followed in 2018 (the year of the Kavanaugh hearings) by many more. But here’s the thing: I found that the hashtag is, by a wide margin, used mostly by its detractors.
...
This is why “Believe All Women” is not an amplification of “Believe Women,” but its negation. As Mr. Morales Henry at the Schlesinger Library told me, after several days of analyzing the use of the two hashtags, “It looks like #BelieveAllWomen, especially recently, is being used in opposition to #BelieveWomen.” Its use spikes on occasions when allegations are made against a liberal politician — often with companion hashtags decrying a double standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

DP. You seem to have comprehension problems. Or you hate women, it’s hard to tell.

The point you don’t want to understand is that a serial liar—a serial liar with an ever-changing story, no less—is very different from a woman who was attacked while amusing herself by drinking or dancing.

Stop with the sleazy and dishonest misrepresentation of victims advocates. They don’t claim that serial liars should automatically be believed. They do advocate for women who were amusing themselves innocently, say at a bar. If you can’t see the difference, you’re a poor excuse for a human being.

Nope. Wrong. Serial liars can also be sexually assaulted. That you're denying that only makes *you* look sleazy, dishonest, and women-hating. Oh, and a poor excuse for a human being. Gotta cover all those clichés.

Sure, serial liars can be raped. But when their rape stories themselves appear to be riddled with lies, nobody is “obligated” to believe them. You need to stop pretending that’s how it works.

You’re trying to undermine legitimate rape victims and for political reasons. That’s why you’re a sleazy woman hater.

Wow. Pot meet kettle x a million. How soon we forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

DP. You seem to have comprehension problems. Or you hate women, it’s hard to tell.

The point you don’t want to understand is that a serial liar—a serial liar with an ever-changing story, no less—is very different from a woman who was attacked while amusing herself by drinking or dancing.

Stop with the sleazy and dishonest misrepresentation of victims advocates. They don’t claim that serial liars should automatically be believed. They do advocate for women who were amusing themselves innocently, say at a bar. If you can’t see the difference, you’re a poor excuse for a human being.

Nope. Wrong. Serial liars can also be sexually assaulted. That you're denying that only makes *you* look sleazy, dishonest, and women-hating. Oh, and a poor excuse for a human being. Gotta cover all those clichés.

Sure, serial liars can be raped. But when their rape stories themselves appear to be riddled with lies, nobody is “obligated” to believe them. You need to stop pretending that’s how it works.

You’re trying to undermine legitimate rape victims and for political reasons. That’s why you’re a sleazy woman hater.

Wow. Pot meet kettle x a million. How soon we forget.

DP here. Whether you like it or not, millions of people legitimately believed the other person and thought it was the Senate's duty to investigate. The thing about Reade, almost nobody is actually defending her. It's all about using her story to undermine a different story.

[Anonymous]

Why is this thread still going? There is no "reade/biden" scandal. It was all made up.