new Reade/Biden thread

[Anonymous]

I believe there is probably a kernel of truth in that something happened that made her uncomfortable. But I don't believe the current rape story. Too many inconsistencies and contradictions. Her past behavior makes her motives questionable. None of it feels organic; I think she is being coached/manipulated/handled. I wouldn't be surprised if she's being paid.

[Anonymous]

Reade’s latest story sounds a lot like this one in a book by her dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reade’s latest story sounds a lot like this one in a book by her dad.

wow! That is strangely coincidental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is probably a kernel of truth in that something happened that made her uncomfortable. But I don't believe the current rape story. Too many inconsistencies and contradictions. Her past behavior makes her motives questionable. None of it feels organic; I think she is being coached/manipulated/handled. I wouldn't be surprised if she's being paid.

Agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone on twitter brought up a valid point. She claims to have also been a senate staffer at the time and recalled that the dress code required women to wear pantyhose with skirts. Those of us who are old enough to remember pantyhose can verify that they were constricting enough to practically cut off circulation. It is hard to imagine that he was able to reach up her skirt and inside pantyhose far enough to penetrate. Especially while standing up in a hallway where someone could have walked by at anytime.

I'm from that generation and I remember thigh highs. Don't you? They were all the rage,
Any plenty of women have worn stockings with a garter versus actual pantyhose. Some do for health reasons.

Not in the early 90s

DP. Of course in the early 90s. I wore thigh-highs all the time. Still have some unopened packages in the back of my closet. Very commonplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone on twitter brought up a valid point. She claims to have also been a senate staffer at the time and recalled that the dress code required women to wear pantyhose with skirts. Those of us who are old enough to remember pantyhose can verify that they were constricting enough to practically cut off circulation. It is hard to imagine that he was able to reach up her skirt and inside pantyhose far enough to penetrate. Especially while standing up in a hallway where someone could have walked by at anytime.

I'm from that generation and I remember thigh highs. Don't you? They were all the rage,
Any plenty of women have worn stockings with a garter versus actual pantyhose. Some do for health reasons.

Not in the early 90s

Yes, in the early 90s. My mother bought them for me. Who they hell are you to speak for all women and products?

I am someone who was in my early 20s in the early 90s.

And so was I! Yet, I was given and WORE thigh highs!

+1
Me too. Even though they squished my thigh fat, they were cooler and more comfortable than the kind with a waistband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah... this doesn’t help her credibility.

Or anyone believing her. WTAF?!

How would those texts be relevant in an alleged sexual assault case? They are free speech political viewpoints.

They’re not. They have nothing to do with her rape accusation. And I remember a certain someone who had ultra-liberal views, and Democrats insisted those views had *nothing* to do with her (flimsy) allegation. So fun how the goalposts move depending on who’s being accused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Biden 100%. Reade’s story doesn’t hold water.

I believe her. Bidden is creepy as hell (has been for decades) and this sounds exactly like his usual behavior. And just look at the behavior of the son he personally raised (knocked up a strip club hooker while coked up, and denied it all the way to paternity court).

His denial does not hold water. Plus, he is blatantly hiding things.

Doesn't sound at all like his usual behavior. He touches people, both men and women, in public in overly friendly ways. We've all seen that. But there is not another report of him cornering anybody and reaching under their skirts. There are no other reports of him trying to coerce subordinates into sex or even having a consensual extra-marital affair with anyone.

[Anonymous]

transparency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah... this doesn’t help her credibility.

Or anyone believing her. WTAF?!

How would those texts be relevant in an alleged sexual assault case? They are free speech political viewpoints.

They’re not. They have nothing to do with her rape accusation. And I remember a certain someone who had ultra-liberal views, and Democrats insisted those views had *nothing* to do with her (flimsy) allegation. So fun how the goalposts move depending on who’s being accused.

Reade is moving the goalposts herself by flipflopping all over the place. Would you tweet this about your former boss who sexually assaulted you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah... this doesn’t help her credibility.

Or anyone believing her. WTAF?!

How would those texts be relevant in an alleged sexual assault case? They are free speech political viewpoints.

1. Russia hates America. Russia is an enemy of the state: Russia meddled in 2016 and said they would meddle again in 2020 to support Bernie, and try to attack Biden by focusing on his son. That didn’t work so they are bringing in a clear Russian sympathizer with no credibiiity to just divert attention. It’s low and disgusting con ops from the corrupt GOP. Entrenched with dirty money and dirty people.

2. Character and reputation matters. If you’re trusting this, you cannot trust Trump who has done so much more that we have seen with our own eyes. We are all witness to it.

Speaking of no credibility ^^^. Take the tinfoil hat off and grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone on twitter brought up a valid point. She claims to have also been a senate staffer at the time and recalled that the dress code required women to wear pantyhose with skirts. Those of us who are old enough to remember pantyhose can verify that they were constricting enough to practically cut off circulation. It is hard to imagine that he was able to reach up her skirt and inside pantyhose far enough to penetrate. Especially while standing up in a hallway where someone could have walked by at anytime.

I'm from that generation and I remember thigh highs. Don't you? They were all the rage,
Any plenty of women have worn stockings with a garter versus actual pantyhose. Some do for health reasons.

Not in the early 90s

Yes, in the early 90s. My mother bought them for me. Who they hell are you to speak for all women and products?

I am someone who was in my early 20s in the early 90s.

And so was I! Yet, I was given and WORE thigh highs!

To work? LOL. Ok, maybe you did. But, literally, I don't know anyone else who did that. I wore a lot of tights and hose, though. As did most if not all the women I knew.

DP. Thigh highs ARE hose, dope. Maybe you didn’t wear them, but plenty of women did. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:transparency

The complaint wouldn't be at the archives. The records he is speaking of are barred from release for 50 years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-national-archives-tara-reade-documents-2020-5

[Anonymous]

I’d want to interview the three interns Tara Reade had been supervising, before she was suddenly demoted into isolation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone on twitter brought up a valid point. She claims to have also been a senate staffer at the time and recalled that the dress code required women to wear pantyhose with skirts. Those of us who are old enough to remember pantyhose can verify that they were constricting enough to practically cut off circulation. It is hard to imagine that he was able to reach up her skirt and inside pantyhose far enough to penetrate. Especially while standing up in a hallway where someone could have walked by at anytime.

I'm from that generation and I remember thigh highs. Don't you? They were all the rage,
Any plenty of women have worn stockings with a garter versus actual pantyhose. Some do for health reasons.

Not in the early 90s

Yes, in the early 90s. My mother bought them for me. Who they hell are you to speak for all women and products?

I am someone who was in my early 20s in the early 90s.

And so was I! Yet, I was given and WORE thigh highs!

To work? LOL. Ok, maybe you did. But, literally, I don't know anyone else who did that. I wore a lot of tights and hose, though. As did most if not all the women I knew.

DP. Thigh highs ARE hose, dope. Maybe you didn’t wear them, but plenty of women did. Move on.

DP. I wouldn't say "plenty of women" wore them. I'm from that era and I don't know anyone who did.

But, you know what, it's irrelevant! Because she said her legs were "bare" and that isn't possible with hose, tights or thigh highs.

Move on.