It looks like Biden didn't understand women could be total frauds and liars. He knows now.

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?

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”.

I take it you don't understand synonyms. Let me illustrate for you: I presume you don't know what you're talking about. I believe you to be a twit. See?

NP. Presume and believe are not synonyms.

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?

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”.

I take it you don't understand synonyms. Let me illustrate for you: I presume you don't know what you're talking about. I believe you to be a twit. See?

English majors think things are synonyms that lawyers don’t think are synonyms.

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?

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”.

I take it you don't understand synonyms. Let me illustrate for you: I presume you don't know what you're talking about. I believe you to be a twit. See?

Sure I do:

I believe you don't know what you're talking about. I assume you to be a twit.

This from the Medium article. https://medium.com/@macarthur.cliff/the-tara-reade-case-eight-things-the-media-wont-tell-you-27d3ca14978

As an example, Tara Reade claimed that her mother called into the Larry King show in 1993 to talked about her experience with Biden. It turns out that this did happen, and a transcript of the August 11, 1993 episode reads as follows:
Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.

This call isn’t particularly damning to Biden. If Reade had just told her mother she had been sexually assaulted, her mother wouldn’t be likely to have “respect for Biden.” Saying “the only thing she could have done was go to the press” also contradicts Tara’s claim that her mother told her to go to the police. The “problems” described in the call seem only to refer to whatever workplace politics led to Tara’s departure. That would fit the context of the episode, which was about toxic work environments in DC.

Tara Reade knows the call isn’t particularly helpful to her, which is why she made up her own version:
I remember it being an anonymous call and her saying my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired, where can she go for help? I was mortified.

Reade’s description of the call is a complete fabrication. Not a single word of what she claims her mother said is true. The only thing these two stories have in common is the existence of the phone call. Fortunately for Reade, the trick worked. Media outlets chose to report on what Reade claimed was in the call, and omit its actual contents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Sorry, nice try. You know exactly what that phrase means. Read those five words by themselves, if you need to. You can continue to put your hands over your ears, but it doesn't change anything.

Biden was a public defender so I’m betting he knows a truckload more about presumption than you.

So, you think Biden meant "presume"...only some of the time?

Biden is currently the “presumptive nominee.” Has that stopped idiots like Tucker Carlson and Elizabeth Bruenig from thinking that this new accusation should keep him from continuing to be the nominee? No.

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”.

I take it you don't understand synonyms. Let me illustrate for you: I presume you don't know what you're talking about. I believe you to be a twit. See?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Sorry, nice try. You know exactly what that phrase means. Read those five words by themselves, if you need to. You can continue to put your hands over your ears, but it doesn't change anything.

Biden was a public defender so I’m betting he knows a truckload more about presumption than you.

+1,000. Stop trying to tell lawyers what “presumption” means.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Sorry, nice try. You know exactly what that phrase means. Read those five words by themselves, if you need to. You can continue to put your hands over your ears, but it doesn't change anything.

Biden was a public defender so I’m betting he knows a truckload more about presumption than you.

So, you think Biden meant "presume"...only some of the time?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Dumb then what you're saying is if a woman is in court we should just forgo the trial because even with no evidence they must be telling the truth!!!!!

No, that is not what I am saying. Those quotes are what Biden was saying.

Thorough, concise summary of the various problems with Reade’s accusations. https://medium.com/@macarthur.cliff/the-tara-reade-case-eight-things-the-media-wont-tell-you-27d3ca14978

For example, these paras on attempts to corroborate her story. (If you go to the link, there are hyperlinks to sources.)

“In addition to filing a formal complaint, Reade says she complained to three of her supervisors: Marianne Baker, Dennis Toner, and Ted Kaufman. All three strongly deny that any such event occurred. Reade also claims that she was shunned in the office after filing her report, implying that her story was common knowledge. AP spoke to 21 Biden staffers who worked at the same time as Reade; not a single one of them corroborated her story.

These are people who worked for Biden 27 years ago and no longer have any association with him. While it’s possible to imagine a handful of loyal aides conspiring to cover up the story, it strains credulity to imagine all 24 interviewees doing so in unison, in addition to all the folks in the Senate personnel office covering up her complaint. Yet for Tara Reade’s story to be true, this is what we are asked to believe.

Reade told NBC that she had shared the story with five friends, but four of the five deny this. NBC contacted those people. Three of them denied her ever sharing any story with them, and the fourth only remembered her mentioning Biden’s shoulder-touching. The fifth agreed with her account, but refused to do so on the record.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Sorry, nice try. You know exactly what that phrase means. Read those five words by themselves, if you need to. You can continue to put your hands over your ears, but it doesn't change anything.

Biden was a public defender so I’m betting he knows a truckload more about presumption than you.

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?

Dumb then what you're saying is if a woman is in court we should just forgo the trial because even with no evidence they must be telling the truth!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Sorry, nice try. You know exactly what that phrase means. Read those five words by themselves, if you need to. You can continue to put your hands over your ears, but it doesn't change anything.

Any response to 22:31?

Anonymous wrote: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?

Sorry, nice try. You know exactly what that phrase means. Read those five words by themselves, if you need to. You can continue to put your hands over your ears, but it doesn't change anything.