new Reade/Biden thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Omg, her grifting just doesn’t stop. I only got a few paras in and was horrified. I’ll read the rest tonight, after work.

Sure, blame the victim.....how enlightened.

+ 1 million
Remember when doubters of a certain someone were labeled "victim-blamers, rape apologists, women-haters," etc.? That's quite a 180 these hypocrites have managed!

We went back to doubting women because Trump superfan Jacob Wohl paid women to accuse Robert Mueller of rape.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-fbi-investigation-women-offered-money-false-claims-2018-10

Good to know that. Will remember that the next time an R is accused. No matter how many times/threads you post this in.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Omg, her grifting just doesn’t stop. I only got a few paras in and was horrified. I’ll read the rest tonight, after work.

Sure, blame the victim.....how enlightened.

+ 1 million
Remember when doubters of a certain someone were labeled "victim-blamers, rape apologists, women-haters," etc.? That's quite a 180 these hypocrites have managed!

We went back to doubting women because Trump superfan Jacob Wohl paid women to accuse Robert Mueller of rape.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-fbi-investigation-women-offered-money-false-claims-2018-10

Good to know that. Will remember that the next time an R is accused. No matter how many times/threads you post this in.

+100

Glad you both will remember that your President is the one supported by ratf&cking frauds. You need more of that in your life.

Oh, look! The "ratf&cking" poster is back! How we've missed your charming turn of phrase. Always keeping it klassy, amirite?

I’ve never used that term here before. But it’s hilarious that you, a Trump supporter, are offended by profanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who supports trump tell me why all of the sudden you are not ok blaming the victim? Don't say liberal hypocrisy. Tell me why this is so important to you now.

We were told last year that all women must be believed and questioning the victim is wrong. What changed?

Total BS. You’ve been told many times to drop the “all” and that unquestioning belief was never guaranteed. You were asked to come up with proof that “all” was widely used beyond the fringe and some actresses, and you came up with one Senator (who later phrased it differently) and a few posters by Senate staff.

Have you no self-respect? Or are you doing this for money?

Here's a direct quote from one of the many threads about you-know-who a couple of years ago. 9/17/2018
"Again, such a level of backlash and intense scrutiny over every aspect of her life?

No one except a truth-telling person would want to put themselves in that position.

And among those, there are very few truth-telling persons who would actually go through with it.

As the MeToo movement has shown, most victims still aren't ready to come out. It's too traumatizing to relive the even and have a number of people calling you names, tearing you apart and disbelieving you.

Therefore I find the accuser credible."

So let me ask you: why did you (or whoever wrote this, obviously someone you agree with) defend with such vigor that particular woman, but not Reade? We'll wait.

Easy. What pp said about changing her story more often than changing her name, defrauding a charity and lying in bankruptcy court. Also her complete lack of evidence (despite initially claiming she filed about the harassment) and problems with her supposed corroboration (her brother changing his story).

You think we should now believe her despite all this? What a ridiculous straw man of a standard you’re trying to create here.

I see. And the accuser being spoken about in the PP didn't have huge gaps in her *own* story? And NO ONE who would corroborate it? And you're calling that a straw man? Nope. THAT'S the comparison here. That you would so completely believe one woman's weird, decades old story, with no facts, dates, witnesses, or places, but so completely disbelieve another woman's similarly hard to prove story? What's the only real difference between these women? The political parties of the accused.

HYPOCRITE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Omg, her grifting just doesn’t stop. I only got a few paras in and was horrified. I’ll read the rest tonight, after work.

Sure, blame the victim.....how enlightened.

+ 1 million
Remember when doubters of a certain someone were labeled "victim-blamers, rape apologists, women-haters," etc.? That's quite a 180 these hypocrites have managed!

We went back to doubting women because Trump superfan Jacob Wohl paid women to accuse Robert Mueller of rape.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-fbi-investigation-women-offered-money-false-claims-2018-10

Good to know that. Will remember that the next time an R is accused. No matter how many times/threads you post this in.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Omg, her grifting just doesn’t stop. I only got a few paras in and was horrified. I’ll read the rest tonight, after work.

Sure, blame the victim.....how enlightened.

+ 1 million
Remember when doubters of a certain someone were labeled "victim-blamers, rape apologists, women-haters," etc.? That's quite a 180 these hypocrites have managed!

We went back to doubting women because Trump superfan Jacob Wohl paid women to accuse Robert Mueller of rape.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-fbi-investigation-women-offered-money-false-claims-2018-10

Good to know that. Will remember that the next time an R is accused. No matter how many times/threads you post this in.

+100

Glad you both will remember that your President is the one supported by ratf&cking frauds. You need more of that in your life.

Oh, look! The "ratf&cking" poster is back! How we've missed your charming turn of phrase. Always keeping it klassy, amirite?

I’ve never used that term here before. But it’s hilarious that you, a Trump supporter, are offended by profanity.

Right, you've *never* used that term before. Except, you have - on multiple threads. Your tradecraft is sorely lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

What he actually said didn’t fit in the headline. It indeed has qualifiers. Shall I bold them for you?

Biden added, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-when-a-woman-alleges-sexual-assault-presume-she-is-telling-the-truth/2018/09/17/7718c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Omg, her grifting just doesn’t stop. I only got a few paras in and was horrified. I’ll read the rest tonight, after work.

Sure, blame the victim.....how enlightened.

+ 1 million
Remember when doubters of a certain someone were labeled "victim-blamers, rape apologists, women-haters," etc.? That's quite a 180 these hypocrites have managed!

We went back to doubting women because Trump superfan Jacob Wohl paid women to accuse Robert Mueller of rape.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-fbi-investigation-women-offered-money-false-claims-2018-10

Good to know that. Will remember that the next time an R is accused. No matter how many times/threads you post this in.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Omg, her grifting just doesn’t stop. I only got a few paras in and was horrified. I’ll read the rest tonight, after work.

Sure, blame the victim.....how enlightened.

+ 1 million
Remember when doubters of a certain someone were labeled "victim-blamers, rape apologists, women-haters," etc.? That's quite a 180 these hypocrites have managed!

We went back to doubting women because Trump superfan Jacob Wohl paid women to accuse Robert Mueller of rape.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-fbi-investigation-women-offered-money-false-claims-2018-10

Good to know that. Will remember that the next time an R is accused. No matter how many times/threads you post this in.

+100

Glad you both will remember that your President is the one supported by ratf&cking frauds. You need more of that in your life.

Oh, look! The "ratf&cking" poster is back! How we've missed your charming turn of phrase. Always keeping it klassy, amirite?

I’ve never used that term here before. But it’s hilarious that you, a Trump supporter, are offended by profanity.

Right, you've *never* used that term before. Except, you have - on multiple threads. Your tradecraft is sorely lacking.

No, I never have posted that term on this website. Are you OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who supports trump tell me why all of the sudden you are not ok blaming the victim? Don't say liberal hypocrisy. Tell me why this is so important to you now.

We were told last year that all women must be believed and questioning the victim is wrong. What changed?

Total BS. You’ve been told many times to drop the “all” and that unquestioning belief was never guaranteed. You were asked to come up with proof that “all” was widely used beyond the fringe and some actresses, and you came up with one Senator (who later phrased it differently) and a few posters by Senate staff.

Have you no self-respect? Or are you doing this for money?

Here's a direct quote from one of the many threads about you-know-who a couple of years ago. 9/17/2018
"Again, such a level of backlash and intense scrutiny over every aspect of her life?

No one except a truth-telling person would want to put themselves in that position.

And among those, there are very few truth-telling persons who would actually go through with it.

As the MeToo movement has shown, most victims still aren't ready to come out. It's too traumatizing to relive the even and have a number of people calling you names, tearing you apart and disbelieving you.

Therefore I find the accuser credible."

So let me ask you: why did you (or whoever wrote this, obviously someone you agree with) defend with such vigor that particular woman, but not Reade? We'll wait.

Easy. What pp said about changing her story more often than changing her name, defrauding a charity and lying in bankruptcy court. Also her complete lack of evidence (despite initially claiming she filed about the harassment) and problems with her supposed corroboration (her brother changing his story).

You think we should now believe her despite all this? What a ridiculous straw man of a standard you’re trying to create here.

I see. And the accuser being spoken about in the PP didn't have huge gaps in her *own* story? And NO ONE who would corroborate it? And you're calling that a straw man? Nope. THAT'S the comparison here. That you would so completely believe one woman's weird, decades old story, with no facts, dates, witnesses, or places, but so completely disbelieve another woman's similarly hard to prove story? What's the only real difference between these women? The political parties of the accused.

HYPOCRITE.

And you all who pshaw two dozen accusations against Trump aren’t hypocrites? OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

What he actually said didn’t fit in the headline. It indeed has qualifiers. Shall I bold them for you?

Biden added, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-when-a-woman-alleges-sexual-assault-presume-she-is-telling-the-truth/2018/09/17/7718c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

So in other words, believe all women. Got it. Thanks for proving the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

What he actually said didn’t fit in the headline. It indeed has qualifiers. Shall I bold them for you?

Biden added, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-when-a-woman-alleges-sexual-assault-presume-she-is-telling-the-truth/2018/09/17/7718c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

This provides no qualifiers. You are taking this to mean what you want it to mean. It says "you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real". Where is the qualifier there? What alternative, other than believing her, does that statement allow for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

And on another note, notice how the PP is mocking someone s/he assumes isn't a native English speaker? How xenophobic. How racist.

Do you understand parts of speech? There are no qualifiers.

Let’s break it down for you: “presume” is very different from “believe”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

And on another note, notice how the PP is mocking someone s/he assumes isn't a native English speaker? How xenophobic. How racist.

Do you understand parts of speech? There are no qualifiers.

Let’s break it down for you: “presume” is very different from “believe”.

"Presume" and "believe" are synonyms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

What he actually said didn’t fit in the headline. It indeed has qualifiers. Shall I bold them for you?

Biden added, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-when-a-woman-alleges-sexual-assault-presume-she-is-telling-the-truth/2018/09/17/7718c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

So in other words, believe all women. Got it. Thanks for proving the point.

Boy you’re dumb. In what world does “start off with the presumption” translate to “believe all women no matter of the evidence says otherwise”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

What he actually said didn’t fit in the headline. It indeed has qualifiers. Shall I bold them for you?

Biden added, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-when-a-woman-alleges-sexual-assault-presume-she-is-telling-the-truth/2018/09/17/7718c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

So in other words, believe all women. Got it. Thanks for proving the point.

Boy you’re dumb. In what world does “start off with the presumption” translate to “believe all women no matter of the evidence says otherwise”?

"Start off with the presumption" means "assume that it happened". So, he is saying "assume that it happened" at the beginning, BEFORE even considering evidence. There is no evidence when you are "starting off". It has to be investigated, remember?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

What he actually said didn’t fit in the headline. It indeed has qualifiers. Shall I bold them for you?

Biden added, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-when-a-woman-alleges-sexual-assault-presume-she-is-telling-the-truth/2018/09/17/7718c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

So in other words, believe all women. Got it. Thanks for proving the point.

Boy you’re dumb. In what world does “start off with the presumption” translate to “believe all women no matter of the evidence says otherwise”?

Because nowhere in his statement does he say - or even hint at - what the evidence says or doesn't say. You're simply plugging in words to further your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those of you who were insisting that no one says "believe all women"...well, this sure looks like they do.

+1
I would even say Biden believes more women than the hypocrites on this website do.

Since when does “presume she’s telling the truth” equate to “believe all women, regardless”?

Top pp, is English your native language?

Ok, I'll bite. What do YOU think Biden was saying in this quote? What qualifier is present in his statement?

Yes, I'd like to know this to. What is this imaginary qualifier that the PP is insisting Biden added?

What he actually said didn’t fit in the headline. It indeed has qualifiers. Shall I bold them for you?

Biden added, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-when-a-woman-alleges-sexual-assault-presume-she-is-telling-the-truth/2018/09/17/7718c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

So in other words, believe all women. Got it. Thanks for proving the point.

Boy you’re dumb. In what world does “start off with the presumption” translate to “believe all women no matter of the evidence says otherwise”?

"Start off with the presumption" means "assume that it happened". So, he is saying "assume that it happened" at the beginning, BEFORE even considering evidence. There is no evidence when you are "starting off". It has to be investigated, remember?

DP. Um, a presumption can be refuted or overcome. Think about the presumption of innocence in our criminal justice system - do you think no one can be convicted of a crime because prosecutors can’t review evidence or present it to a jury? A presumption is just where you start unless/until there is evidence that leads you to conclude otherwise. Personally, I feel that the evidence that’s been made publicly available to date is sufficient to overcome the presumption that Reade is telling the truth.

[Anonymous]

Hey cons, come back when you have a better argument than assaulting the English language by arguing that “start off with the presumption” means you’re eternally wedded to an idea. Let me guess, you got 650 on the SATs, all sections combined.

See you tomorrow when you have better material from your puppeteers?