new Reade/Biden thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 pages on the other thread and 44 plus here doesn't matter. What matters is that oral sex isnt sex.

And what Biden is accused of isn’t sex either. End of story.

I disagree, it’s sexual harassment by someone in power, even if it doesn’t meet some state’s formal definition of “rape.” Donnie the Groper has done similar things dozens of times in much better documented allegations, and I think we can all agree it’s vile.

But I doubt Biden did it. Reade has changed her story too many times and her corroboration doesn’t back her up very well. I doubt The NY Times, with its call for an investigation of the Delaware files, thinks anything will turn up there, either. They just want to put this matter to rest before November, so they can fairly turn their big guns on Trump’s 24 allegations.

This thread is totally useful for ... airing and debunking the claims against Biden. I’ve learned a lot from you guys re the new accusation that lasted all of 3 hours on Saturday (what was her name again?). Re the Reade defrauding and robbing the pregnant horse non-profit. Re Reade editing her 2019 Medium post 2 days before she came out with her different 2020 allegations. Re Reade now claiming Biden’s office fired her although she had earlier said she left because her boyfriend “pleaded” with her to join him in the Midwest.

Keep this thread open and keep this useful stuff coming!

Let's assume Biden "harassed" her - that isn't rape and that isn't assault. Also this was after the Clarence Thomas hearings, which Biden started apologizing for almost immediately after and at the time in 1993, was leading the charge towards legislation and rules around benefiting women on this issue. The context just seems like the timing would be ridiculously bizarre for this to have taken place as Reade describes it.

Reade's story falls apart because she has changed it so many times. The pantyhose thing was discussed already, but there is no world where a sitting senator in 1993 fingers an aid in a public hallway.

PP here. I totally agree that Reade’s story falls apart on many grounds, including some you didn’t mention just now, like the lack of corroboration. (Her brother changing his story, for example).

I do believe sexual harassment is assault. I was pinned against a wall and physically molested and it sure felt like assault.

But again, so far Reade’s claim that Biden did this is not credible.

Being pinned against a wall and physically molested is absolutely sexual assault. Sexual harassment is not sexual assault.

Tara’s claim is that something similar happened to her. So it would be assault. If it happened, which I doubt given her changing evidence and weak/changing corroboration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The truth is, we need a better Democratic Presidential nominee.

The man is old, has said inappropriate and impulsive things, been handsy with women, and now there’s this story. I believe Biden is not evil, and I believe Reade was harassed in some way: the two can coexist.

But I don’t want Biden as President. He’s not smart, he’s in decline, and he has a questionable history with women.

I want any one of the multiple younger and more competent Democratic candidates!!!!

You’re either a disgruntled Bernie Bro or a Con trying to divide the opposition. Either way, you need to go away.

No, I am a left-leaning person who preferred Warren, but who also thinks she's too old, particularly in coronavirus times. So I'm not supporting the person who I think is great for the job (Warren), I wish to support someone equally competent but perhaps less experienced, and definitely not Biden! I never liked Sanders, he's too inflexible, not likeable, is corona-aged and has already had a heart attack. But the younger candidates were pretty good! Why didn't they get traction? Why are we stuck with Biden????

Honestly, if I were a conservative person, I'd be delighted with Biden.

Because we need someone who can beat Trump. Polls show Biden beating Trump today. I liked Buttegieg too, but he can’t beat Trump. I learned a while back that charisma and/or great policies are meaningless if you can’t actually win an election. That’s your choice: sit this one out and risk getting four more years of vile Trump.

PP you replied to. If Democrats weren't so craven, we'd have an Obama moment with a new candidate, not a worn-out oldie. I do believe people can turn out for someone who is not Biden, and kick out Trump.
Of course, it looks like it's too late now, and the DNC is going to close ranks. I think it's a shame.

Biden wasn’t my first choice, but he was the one who got people to turn out in the primaries and vote. That’s why he’s the nominee. The end.

+100. I wanted Warren. But this is a democracy and our candidates lost in the primaries by a fair vote. You might be disappointed. But you don’t get to stage a coup based on a conflict-ridden account. Just like in the 2016 general elections, we all need to live with what the majority decides.

Unless we get new info on the rape accusation that shows it to be unambiguously true. Nobody thinks that will happen. Not even The NY Times with its call to investigate the Delaware files. The Times just wants to put this matter to rest this summer so we aren’t still talking about it in October and we can (fair’s fair) open up all the allegations against Trump.

Again, this is a democracy and your man or woman lost the primaries. Why would you undermine democracy in your own party’s primary? Don’t let the cons manipulate you into thinking this is in any way OK. Move on: the choice is now Biden vs. Trump.

Shocking alternative! These deadenders aren’t actually Democrats, and they used Bernie as a vehicle, not actually supporters. They’re Green-disaffiliated-bombthrower-malcontents-trolls. That frame explains literally everything from 2016 forward.

Pp here. Yep, this has totally occurred to me.

Also that these could be Cons pretending to impersonate Dems. Just the other week a Con was pretending to be a gun-loving Dem and only outed himself when he got outraged that someone called Fox “faux.” I even mentioned this in a Website Feedback thread and the con, who was also participating there, didn’t bother to deny it in front of the moderator.

I’ve been tempted to ask the moderator about this poster. I’m sure he doesn’t want paid con social media operatives on his site. But there’s an equally good chance that this pp, like Tara, is just a disappointed Bernie Bro or Green flame-thrower who thinks undermining democracy is OK so long as it’s within the Dem party.

This popped up today...and it again explains the frame. occams razor...they ain’t Democrats

[twitter] https://twitter.com/kerravon4/status/1257325154419556352?s=21[/twitter]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 pages on the other thread and 44 plus here doesn't matter. What matters is that oral sex isnt sex.

And what Biden is accused of isn’t sex either. End of story.

I disagree, it’s sexual harassment by someone in power, even if it doesn’t meet some state’s formal definition of “rape.” Donnie the Groper has done similar things dozens of times in much better documented allegations, and I think we can all agree it’s vile.

But I doubt Biden did it. Reade has changed her story too many times and her corroboration doesn’t back her up very well. I doubt The NY Times, with its call for an investigation of the Delaware files, thinks anything will turn up there, either. They just want to put this matter to rest before November, so they can fairly turn their big guns on Trump’s 24 allegations.

This thread is totally useful for ... airing and debunking the claims against Biden. I’ve learned a lot from you guys re the new accusation that lasted all of 3 hours on Saturday (what was her name again?). Re the Reade defrauding and robbing the pregnant horse non-profit. Re Reade editing her 2019 Medium post 2 days before she came out with her different 2020 allegations. Re Reade now claiming Biden’s office fired her although she had earlier said she left because her boyfriend “pleaded” with her to join him in the Midwest.

Keep this thread open and keep this useful stuff coming!

Let's assume Biden "harassed" her - that isn't rape and that isn't assault. Also this was after the Clarence Thomas hearings, which Biden started apologizing for almost immediately after and at the time in 1993, was leading the charge towards legislation and rules around benefiting women on this issue. The context just seems like the timing would be ridiculously bizarre for this to have taken place as Reade describes it.

Reade's story falls apart because she has changed it so many times. The pantyhose thing was discussed already, but there is no world where a sitting senator in 1993 fingers an aid in a public hallway.

PP here. I totally agree that Reade’s story falls apart on many grounds, including some you didn’t mention just now, like the lack of corroboration. (Her brother changing his story, for example).

I do believe sexual harassment is assault. I was pinned against a wall and physically molested and it sure felt like assault.

But again, so far Reade’s claim that Biden did this is not credible.

Being pinned against a wall and physically molested is absolutely sexual assault. Sexual harassment is not sexual assault.

Yes, that would be assault. But until recently, that isn't what she claimed. And now, it appears that she never even filed a complaint.

So, what can I make up about you from 20 years ago with no evidence?

[Anonymous]

Reade is incredible - in every sense of the word. It’s ridiculous.
Read this - it’s a huge meticulously researched and documented compilation of all the crap she’s pulled.
http://ascammersnightmareisjustice.blogspot.com/2020/04/tara-reade-legacy-of-lies-part-one.html?m=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 pages on the other thread and 44 plus here doesn't matter. What matters is that oral sex isnt sex.

And what Biden is accused of isn’t sex either. End of story.

I disagree, it’s sexual harassment by someone in power, even if it doesn’t meet some state’s formal definition of “rape.” Donnie the Groper has done similar things dozens of times in much better documented allegations, and I think we can all agree it’s vile.

But I doubt Biden did it. Reade has changed her story too many times and her corroboration doesn’t back her up very well. I doubt The NY Times, with its call for an investigation of the Delaware files, thinks anything will turn up there, either. They just want to put this matter to rest before November, so they can fairly turn their big guns on Trump’s 24 allegations.

This thread is totally useful for ... airing and debunking the claims against Biden. I’ve learned a lot from you guys re the new accusation that lasted all of 3 hours on Saturday (what was her name again?). Re the Reade defrauding and robbing the pregnant horse non-profit. Re Reade editing her 2019 Medium post 2 days before she came out with her different 2020 allegations. Re Reade now claiming Biden’s office fired her although she had earlier said she left because her boyfriend “pleaded” with her to join him in the Midwest.

Keep this thread open and keep this useful stuff coming!

Let's assume Biden "harassed" her - that isn't rape and that isn't assault. Also this was after the Clarence Thomas hearings, which Biden started apologizing for almost immediately after and at the time in 1993, was leading the charge towards legislation and rules around benefiting women on this issue. The context just seems like the timing would be ridiculously bizarre for this to have taken place as Reade describes it.

Reade's story falls apart because she has changed it so many times. The pantyhose thing was discussed already, but there is no world where a sitting senator in 1993 fingers an aid in a public hallway.

PP here. I totally agree that Reade’s story falls apart on many grounds, including some you didn’t mention just now, like the lack of corroboration. (Her brother changing his story, for example).

I do believe sexual harassment is assault. I was pinned against a wall and physically molested and it sure felt like assault.

But again, so far Reade’s claim that Biden did this is not credible.

Being pinned against a wall and physically molested is absolutely sexual assault. Sexual harassment is not sexual assault.

Yes, that would be assault. But until recently, that isn't what she claimed. And now, it appears that she never even filed a complaint.

So, what can I make up about you from 20 years ago with no evidence?

We’re in agreement, then. About the meaning of assault and about the changing nature of Reade’s accusations.

The GOP is desperate about their candidate and they’re dragging all these people out of the woodwork and/or giving them heavy publicity. Anybody remember Eva Murry’s claim from only two days ago? Even Fox had to admit Biden wasn’t at the event in question and dropped the story like a rock. Although Fox couldn’t resist one story even with that caveat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shocking alternative! These deadenders aren’t actually Democrats, and they used Bernie as a vehicle, not actually supporters. They’re Green-disaffiliated-bombthrower-malcontents-trolls. That frame explains literally everything from 2016 forward.

Pp here. Yep, this has totally occurred to me.

Also that these could be Cons pretending to impersonate Dems. Just the other week a Con was pretending to be a gun-loving Dem and only outed himself when he got outraged that someone called Fox “faux.” I even mentioned this in a Website Feedback thread and the con, who was also participating there, didn’t bother to deny it in front of the moderator.

I’ve been tempted to ask the moderator about this poster. I’m sure he doesn’t want paid con social media operatives on his site. But there’s an equally good chance that this pp, like Tara, is just a disappointed Bernie Bro or Green flame-thrower who thinks undermining democracy is OK so long as it’s within the Dem party.

Weird that nobody has come on to deny this. “I’m not a con/green/Bernie Bro! I’m just a regular Dem, just like you, who’s concerned about the future of my party.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shocking alternative! These deadenders aren’t actually Democrats, and they used Bernie as a vehicle, not actually supporters. They’re Green-disaffiliated-bombthrower-malcontents-trolls. That frame explains literally everything from 2016 forward.

Pp here. Yep, this has totally occurred to me.

Also that these could be Cons pretending to impersonate Dems. Just the other week a Con was pretending to be a gun-loving Dem and only outed himself when he got outraged that someone called Fox “faux.” I even mentioned this in a Website Feedback thread and the con, who was also participating there, didn’t bother to deny it in front of the moderator.

I’ve been tempted to ask the moderator about this poster. I’m sure he doesn’t want paid con social media operatives on his site. But there’s an equally good chance that this pp, like Tara, is just a disappointed Bernie Bro or Green flame-thrower who thinks undermining democracy is OK so long as it’s within the Dem party.

Weird that nobody has come on to deny this. “I’m not a con/green/Bernie Bro! I’m just a regular Dem, just like you, who’s concerned about the future of my party.”

Sure. And that is likely true. But the people pushing it to people like you are not Dems. Like the PP regarding Bruenig saying she hates Dems.
So their application of false or overstated claims is done in order to reach those of us who actually DO care about women and women’s rights, and sexual harassment and assault and holding powerful people and abusive men accountable.

This is done because it sows concern, doubt, worry into minds of people who ARE Dems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shocking alternative! These deadenders aren’t actually Democrats, and they used Bernie as a vehicle, not actually supporters. They’re Green-disaffiliated-bombthrower-malcontents-trolls. That frame explains literally everything from 2016 forward.

Pp here. Yep, this has totally occurred to me.

Also that these could be Cons pretending to impersonate Dems. Just the other week a Con was pretending to be a gun-loving Dem and only outed himself when he got outraged that someone called Fox “faux.” I even mentioned this in a Website Feedback thread and the con, who was also participating there, didn’t bother to deny it in front of the moderator.

I’ve been tempted to ask the moderator about this poster. I’m sure he doesn’t want paid con social media operatives on his site. But there’s an equally good chance that this pp, like Tara, is just a disappointed Bernie Bro or Green flame-thrower who thinks undermining democracy is OK so long as it’s within the Dem party.

Weird that nobody has come on to deny this. “I’m not a con/green/Bernie Bro! I’m just a regular Dem, just like you, who’s concerned about the future of my party.”

Sure. And that is likely true. But the people pushing it to people like you are not Dems. Like the PP regarding Bruenig saying she hates Dems.
So their application of false or overstated claims is done in order to reach those of us who actually DO care about women and women’s rights, and sexual harassment and assault and holding powerful people and abusive men accountable.

This is done because it sows concern, doubt, worry into minds of people who ARE Dems.

Bruenig isn’t a Democrat either, just to underscore PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shocking alternative! These deadenders aren’t actually Democrats, and they used Bernie as a vehicle, not actually supporters. They’re Green-disaffiliated-bombthrower-malcontents-trolls. That frame explains literally everything from 2016 forward.

Pp here. Yep, this has totally occurred to me.

Also that these could be Cons pretending to impersonate Dems. Just the other week a Con was pretending to be a gun-loving Dem and only outed himself when he got outraged that someone called Fox “faux.” I even mentioned this in a Website Feedback thread and the con, who was also participating there, didn’t bother to deny it in front of the moderator.

I’ve been tempted to ask the moderator about this poster. I’m sure he doesn’t want paid con social media operatives on his site. But there’s an equally good chance that this pp, like Tara, is just a disappointed Bernie Bro or Green flame-thrower who thinks undermining democracy is OK so long as it’s within the Dem party.

Weird that nobody has come on to deny this. “I’m not a con/green/Bernie Bro! I’m just a regular Dem, just like you, who’s concerned about the future of my party.”

Sure. And that is likely true. But the people pushing it to people like you are not Dems. Like the PP regarding Bruenig saying she hates Dems.
So their application of false or overstated claims is done in order to reach those of us who actually DO care about women and women’s rights, and sexual harassment and assault and holding powerful people and abusive men accountable.

This is done because it sows concern, doubt, worry into minds of people who ARE Dems.

Oh hey, pp here and I agree with you. I’m not buying that these are real Dems! My point was to question why, if they are real Dems, they haven’t returned to deny the accusation that they’re cons or greens or disgruntled and petulant Bernie Bros.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shocking alternative! These deadenders aren’t actually Democrats, and they used Bernie as a vehicle, not actually supporters. They’re Green-disaffiliated-bombthrower-malcontents-trolls. That frame explains literally everything from 2016 forward.

Pp here. Yep, this has totally occurred to me.

Also that these could be Cons pretending to impersonate Dems. Just the other week a Con was pretending to be a gun-loving Dem and only outed himself when he got outraged that someone called Fox “faux.” I even mentioned this in a Website Feedback thread and the con, who was also participating there, didn’t bother to deny it in front of the moderator.

I’ve been tempted to ask the moderator about this poster. I’m sure he doesn’t want paid con social media operatives on his site. But there’s an equally good chance that this pp, like Tara, is just a disappointed Bernie Bro or Green flame-thrower who thinks undermining democracy is OK so long as it’s within the Dem party.

Weird that nobody has come on to deny this. “I’m not a con/green/Bernie Bro! I’m just a regular Dem, just like you, who’s concerned about the future of my party.”

Sure. And that is likely true. But the people pushing it to people like you are not Dems. Like the PP regarding Bruenig saying she hates Dems.
So their application of false or overstated claims is done in order to reach those of us who actually DO care about women and women’s rights, and sexual harassment and assault and holding powerful people and abusive men accountable.

This is done because it sows concern, doubt, worry into minds of people who ARE Dems.

Bruenig isn’t a Democrat either, just to underscore PP.

She makes me crazy. I really cannot stand her.

[Anonymous]

Bruenig is such an immature child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bruenig is such an immature child.

Starting to see a pattern in her party....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bruenig is such an immature child.

Starting to see a pattern in her party....

What party is she?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bruenig is such an immature child.

Starting to see a pattern in her party....

What party is she?

The Bernie Bro wing of the Dem party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bruenig is such an immature child.

Starting to see a pattern in her party....

What party is she?

The Bernie Bro wing of the Dem party.

Yeah, she’s not a Democrat.