You Boys in Green Homepage YBIG Shop
Forum Home Forum Home : Other Forums : Whatever!
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - U.S Politics
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

U.S Politics

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 214215216217218 334>
Author
Message
pre Madonna View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
I am MALDING

Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 44659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pre Madonna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2020 at 3:36pm
I do get it, don't worry. I didn't question your opinion, albeit you express it as fact, I questioned how because it is dangerous.

You refuse to accept it, which is the problem with this case. Generalisations are being thrown about, without being case specific, which later be used against women, completely regardless of this case.

To get to the truth you will have to cut through the hyperbole on all sides and look at the facts. It is perfectly fine to come to the conclusion nothing happened, but politicking it is as reprehensible as the right pushing it.
The hypocrisy from liberals and Democrats is the problem, not whether she was or wasn't. 
Back to Top
Mulvanystrasse View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Location: Boston USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2015
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mulvanystrasse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2020 at 5:22pm
Originally posted by Il Principe Il Principe wrote:

Originally posted by Mulvanystrasse Mulvanystrasse wrote:

Originally posted by Il Principe Il Principe wrote:

Originally posted by 9fingers 9fingers wrote:

We’re giving yanks way too much credit here. 
Trump @ evens is a no brainer imo considering the opposition 

exactly, the vast majority of people have absolutely no clue about politics and will just vote for someone they recognise. these days you need celebrity and in america trump has the brand so unless oprah or george clooney shows up it's a walkover. nobody knows joe biden even if he is a former VP.


 

Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 3 million votes in 2016. 
Joe Biden is leading Trump in the polls in 5 key battleground states; Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Joe Biden is very well known by voters in the USA, he was a senator for 36 years, Vice President for 8 years. Biden is backed by trade unions which is particularly important in the key swing states of Pennsylvania (where Biden is originally from) Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin.
If both candidates stay healthy, this will be a very close election.

none of these very rational points will matter, polls are the biggest red herring, nobody says they will vote trump, like here no one admits to voting for the shinners.

people who are into politics will know Biden, everybody in the states knows Trump, he only has to win a few key states, popular vote doesn't matter, celebrity rules imo

this isn't about policy either, i hope trump gets beat but i think he wins bigger than 2016

Whether it’s flying confederate flags in their gardens/on their trucks or chanting Space Force at one of their Nuremberg style rallies, Trump supporters are loud and proud, never reticent.

Back to Top
planning View Drop Down
Ray Houghton
Ray Houghton

Football version of Comical Ali.

Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote planning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 12:04am
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

The “not Trump” mantra should be compelling. But also, he is a harder candidate to sling mud at than Clinton, who undoubtedly suffered as a result of her gender (there were other factors at play too). This is why the Republicans have gone for the lowest denominator when attacking him.

Did you say that when Obama faced her and won?

She had everything in her favour. A woman candidate with all the media on her side, every celebrity and organisation backing her, along with every establishment politician and many world leaders, who all boasted that she had 220 votes in her pocket, before voting even began. She didn't suffer because of her gender. She failed because she was a boring candidate that had nothing to offer the electorate, apart from being not Trump. It wasn't enough to get her elected then, and it should not be enough to make a difference now either.

 I notice that most of the media that played the video of a passing bus last time round the clock, have gone quiet on this issue. It shows that their desire to get Trump out of office is greater than their regard for the safety of women. Hypocrites the lot of them.
Back to Top
Zinedine Kilbane 110 View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar
Man City records obsession

Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Location: Dundalk
Status: Offline
Points: 9647
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zinedine Kilbane 110 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 6:37am
America has a real chance to make a statement for Trump to lose by a massive landslide.

However I feel they needed someone more marketable running against him.

Odds of 50/50 are about right and a lot depends on the S&P 500 over the next qtr. 



Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

By Appointment to His Majesty The King

Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 8:35am
Originally posted by planning planning wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

The “not Trump” mantra should be compelling. But also, he is a harder candidate to sling mud at than Clinton, who undoubtedly suffered as a result of her gender (there were other factors at play too). This is why the Republicans have gone for the lowest denominator when attacking him.

Did you say that when Obama faced her and won?

She had everything in her favour. A woman candidate with all the media on her side, every celebrity and organisation backing her, along with every establishment politician and many world leaders, who all boasted that she had 220 votes in her pocket, before voting even began. She didn't suffer because of her gender. She failed because she was a boring candidate that had nothing to offer the electorate, apart from being not Trump. It wasn't enough to get her elected then, and it should not be enough to make a difference now either.

 I notice that most of the media that played the video of a passing bus last time round the clock, have gone quiet on this issue. It shows that their desire to get Trump out of office is greater than their regard for the safety of women. Hypocrites the lot of them.

No I didn’t say that. And do you know why? Because Obama, as a credible candidate beat her in the race, and proceeded to beat another credible candidate, John McCain in November 2008. The slate of Democrats and Republicans ensures a credible race between credible candidates, where the most credible (particularly the entire slate (VP) won.

You might notice, I mentioned other factors. Trumpians turned most of those endorsements etc into a negative, and it stuck. The fact that she had experience to burn and Trump didn’t also didn’t make a difference. Her campaign was presumptive and misguided, and expected victory in States like Michigan. Politico did an excellent article about this a few months after the election, which illustrated deficiencies in her campaign.

But there was undoubtedly a gender aspect to it too. 
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:16am
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

I do get it, don't worry. I didn't question your opinion, albeit you express it as fact, I questioned how because it is dangerous.

You refuse to accept it, which is the problem with this case. Generalisations are being thrown about, without being case specific, which later be used against women, completely regardless of this case.

To get to the truth you will have to cut through the hyperbole on all sides and look at the facts. It is perfectly fine to come to the conclusion nothing happened, but politicking it is as reprehensible as the right pushing it.
The hypocrisy from liberals and Democrats is the problem, not whether she was or wasn't. 
What "generalisations", specificially?

The fact that you refer to so called "hypocrisy" shows it's yerself who is throwing around generalisations. 

To refer to hypocrisy here is to equate all allegations, to say they are all the same. But they aren't all the same. 

The mendacious, bad faith arguments around this case have been frightening. People linking it to the Christine Blasey Ford alleagtions against Kavanaugh and equating them, then trying to denigrate Ford.

Reade's allegation does not stand up - and what has happened is that reasonable people have examined the allegation on its merits and found it has zero credibility based primarily on the substance, or in thsis case non-substance of the allegation - then there's the continuously changing stories, her character, and the political context - none of which can be avoided.

Reade has also had ample opportunity "to be heard". We've been hearing her for the last two months. She has come up with nothing persuasive. Now she has gone to ground.

What is "believe women"? "Believe women" is an unfortunate, if well meaning slogan because too many people take it completely literally in all cases. What it means is take women seriously, hear them out in good faith. 

But is Eva Murry to be "believed"? Are her seven "corroborating witnesses" to be "believed"? Even though that allegation was proved to be completely made up?

Do you believe that politics was the motivation for the fake Eva Murry allegation? Bearing in mind that that whack job Christine O'Donnell of the Tea Party is Murry's aunt and was one of the supposedly "corroborating witnesses"? 

Or are you to serious trying to claim Murry's fake allegation against was Biden had nothing to do with politics?

The political context of these allegations is unavoidable. 

Are we supposed to believe that those who pushed Pizzagate were acting in good faith when it was obviously a ridiculous smear?

People who argue that "believe women" means "accept all accusations" as fact are actually contributing to the destruction of the #metoo movement - because they are either conforming to the exact characterisation of it that Republicans want to push, or doing so mendciously, as the Republicans are doing themselves.

These are the people who are using generalised arguments which will be used to discredit women acting in good faith.

Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:18am
There's a reason too why Ronan Farrow has not gone near this allegation despite Reade continuously asking him to take it on.
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:24am
Originally posted by planning planning wrote:

 I notice that most of the media that played the video of a passing bus last time round the clock, have gone quiet on this issue. It shows that their desire to get Trump out of office is greater than their regard for the safety of women. Hypocrites the lot of them.
As a bad faith, trolling argument, that's a doozy. 

I won't expect you to make any reference to Trump having over 20 credible rape and sexual assault claims against him, or the fact that he was named in a court case as having raped a 13 year old girl along with his buddy Jeffrey Epstein. 

Even his ex-wife said he raped her.

People like you are sick.


Edited by sid waddell - 05 May 2020 at 10:25am
Back to Top
pre Madonna View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
I am MALDING

Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 44659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pre Madonna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:40am
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

I do get it, don't worry. I didn't question your opinion, albeit you express it as fact, I questioned how because it is dangerous.

You refuse to accept it, which is the problem with this case. Generalisations are being thrown about, without being case specific, which later be used against women, completely regardless of this case.

To get to the truth you will have to cut through the hyperbole on all sides and look at the facts. It is perfectly fine to come to the conclusion nothing happened, but politicking it is as reprehensible as the right pushing it.
The hypocrisy from liberals and Democrats is the problem, not whether she was or wasn't. 
What "generalisations", specificially?

The fact that you refer to so called "hypocrisy" shows it's yerself who is throwing around generalisations. 

To refer to hypocrisy here is to equate all allegations, to say they are all the same. But they aren't all the same. 

The mendacious, bad faith arguments around this case have been frightening. People linking it to the Christine Blasey Ford alleagtions against Kavanaugh and equating them, then trying to denigrate Ford.

Reade's allegation does not stand up - and what has happened is that reasonable people have examined the allegation on its merits and found it has zero credibility based primarily on the substance, or in thsis case non-substance of the allegation - then there's the continuously changing stories, her character, and the political context - none of which can be avoided.

Reade has also had ample opportunity "to be heard". We've been hearing her for the last two months. She has come up with nothing persuasive. Now she has gone to ground.

What is "believe women"? "Believe women" is an unfortunate, if well meaning slogan because too many people take it completely literally in all cases. What it means is take women seriously, hear them out in good faith. 

But is Eva Murry to be "believed"? Are her seven "corroborating witnesses" to be "believed"? Even though that allegation was proved to be completely made up?

Do you believe that politics was the motivation for the fake Eva Murry allegation? Bearing in mind that that whack job Christine O'Donnell of the Tea Party is Murry's aunt and was one of the supposedly "corroborating witnesses"? 

Or are you to serious trying to claim Murry's fake allegation against was Biden had nothing to do with politics?

The political context of these allegations is unavoidable. 

Are we supposed to believe that those who pushed Pizzagate were acting in good faith when it was obviously a ridiculous smear?

People who argue that "believe women" means "accept all accusations" as fact are actually contributing to the destruction of the #metoo movement - because they are either conforming to the exact characterisation of it that Republicans want to push, or doing so mendciously, as the Republicans are doing themselves.

These are the people who are using generalised arguments which will be used to discredit women acting in good faith.

Saying that because she is continually changing stories and saying because of that is a sweeping generalisation,  regardless of what happened. Every victim is different and it has been said from any expert eith a trace of credibility on the subject matter that this is possible, so to continue to bring it up and use it, while claiming to be a progressive is hypocrisy.

The rest, is just more irrelevant sh*te talk and a waste of your time.
Back to Top
pre Madonna View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
I am MALDING

Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 44659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pre Madonna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:42am
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/opinion/joe-biden-tara-reade.html

Another reasonable view on it, but I assume this journalist is on the 'disgraced left' or Russian payroll or some other tinfoil hat nonsense. 
Back to Top
reddladd View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar

Joined: 07 Oct 2008
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 6945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reddladd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:45am
That black security guard was shot by the black husband of the black woman that got into a verbal confrontation with the security guard over a face mask. Apparently the security guard 'insulted' the wife. Someone posted that they would bet anything on the fact that the likely killer was not black. Can't remember who posted it.  
I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:49am
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Saying that because she is continually changing stories and saying because of that is a sweeping generalisation,  regardless of what happened. Every victim is different and it has been said from any expert eith a trace of credibility on the subject matter that this is possible, so to continue to bring it up and use it, while claiming to be a progressive is hypocrisy.

The rest, is just more irrelevant sh*te talk and a waste of your time.
How can somebody who has changed their story more often than I've changed clothes this week be believed? 

And how is it a generalisation?

In April 2019 Reade said "this is not a story about sexual assault". 

In March 2020 she went back to edit her article to say "this is not only a story about sexual assault". 

That's a direct contradiction. 

Which Tara Reade should we believe?

Because there are numerous different stories she has has been spinning.

Again, should we believe Eva Murry?

I note that when people are confronted with things they don't like, they often shout "hypocrisy" in bad faith, in an effort to confuse things - because they cant deal with nuance.


Edited by sid waddell - 05 May 2020 at 10:51am
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:51am
Originally posted by reddladd reddladd wrote:

That black security guard was shot by the black husband of the black woman that got into a verbal confrontation with the security guard over a face mask. Apparently the security guard 'insulted' the wife. Someone posted that they would bet anything on the fact that the likely killer was not black. Can't remember who posted it.  
Do you think they're an anti-white racist?
Back to Top
pre Madonna View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
I am MALDING

Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 44659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pre Madonna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:57am
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Saying that because she is continually changing stories and saying because of that is a sweeping generalisation,  regardless of what happened. Every victim is different and it has been said from any expert eith a trace of credibility on the subject matter that this is possible, so to continue to bring it up and use it, while claiming to be a progressive is hypocrisy.

The rest, is just more irrelevant sh*te talk and a waste of your time.
How can somebody who has changed their story more often than I've changed clothes this week be believed? 

And how is it a generalisation?

In April 2019 Reade said "this is not a story about sexual assault". 

In March 2020 she went back to edit her article to say "this is not only a story about sexual assault". 

That's a direct contradiction. 

Which Tara Reade should we believe?

Because there are numerous different stories she has has been spinning.

Again, should we believe Eva Murry?

I note that when people are confronted with things they don't like, they often shout "hypocrisy" in bad faith, in an effort to confuse things - because they cant deal with nuance.
You don't have talk some unnecessary,  unrelated sh*te. 

It is a generalisation because it implies that any woman who changes her story can't be believed. You seem to have massive problem understanding the psychological reasoning behind that, regardless of what you believe here. That's what is really dangerous and what is happening here.

When people are confronted with things they don't like, they start deflecting and going off on tangents and shouting 'but what about', all things you have done consistently.
Nobody is mentioning Eva Murray because she isn't relevant here. Nobody else is relevant here.

Excellent piece by Arwa Mahdawi this morning too. Another on the Putin/Trump payroll...
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 11:03am
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/opinion/joe-biden-tara-reade.html

Another reasonable view on it, but I assume this journalist is on the 'disgraced left' or Russian payroll or some other tinfoil hat nonsense. 
That article is behind a paywall. But I bet it's Elizabeth Bruenig. I've seen loads of her tweets online. And it's clear that her overriding aim is not ascertaining the truth or anything like it, but getting rid of Biden as nominee so that Sanders can take his place. 

And that's why prominent "Sanders supporters" online are pushing this so hard and using Trump-style narratives. A lot of those Sanders supporters aren't what they seem (I'm not saying that about Breuenig, but the narratives pushed by bad faith actors and bots and trolls has heavily distorted the talking points among all Sanders supporters). Even Bernie says it. And I would have much preferred Sanders to Biden as nominee. 

People need to wake up to the reality of the dirtbag left. In the same way that centrists and their online propagandists were prepared to destroy Labour from within when Corbyn was leader, and tolerate a wrecking Tory government, the dirtbag left are prepared to destroy the Democratic party from within and hand Trump another four years. They are wreckers - and they aren't representative of the majority of real Sanders supporters either - who supported him because they wanted society to move in a genuinely progressive direction.


Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 11:24am
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Saying that because she is continually changing stories and saying because of that is a sweeping generalisation,  regardless of what happened. Every victim is different and it has been said from any expert eith a trace of credibility on the subject matter that this is possible, so to continue to bring it up and use it, while claiming to be a progressive is hypocrisy.

The rest, is just more irrelevant sh*te talk and a waste of your time.
How can somebody who has changed their story more often than I've changed clothes this week be believed? 

And how is it a generalisation?

In April 2019 Reade said "this is not a story about sexual assault". 

In March 2020 she went back to edit her article to say "this is not only a story about sexual assault". 

That's a direct contradiction. 

Which Tara Reade should we believe?

Because there are numerous different stories she has has been spinning.

Again, should we believe Eva Murry?

I note that when people are confronted with things they don't like, they often shout "hypocrisy" in bad faith, in an effort to confuse things - because they cant deal with nuance.
You don't have talk some unnecessary,  unrelated sh*te. 

It is a generalisation because it implies that any woman who changes her story can't be believed. You seem to have massive problem understanding the psychological reasoning behind that, regardless of what you believe here. That's what is really dangerous and what is happening here.

When people are confronted with things they don't like, they start deflecting and going off on tangents and shouting 'but what about', all things you have done consistently.
Nobody is mentioning Eva Murray because she isn't relevant here. Nobody else is relevant here.

Excellent piece by Arwa Mahdawi this morning too. Another on the Putin/Trump payroll...
You're equating a chancer who changed their story, contradicted their own story, numerous times, who is not believable, full stop - with actual victims - which is an insult to those victims.

Actual victims do not wait to time their "story" for maximum political effect, as Reade did. 

Why, when Reade approached Time's Up, did she not care about actual legal representation, but PR representation, so that the story would be publicised as much as possible?

You can keep ignoring the Russian angle too - but you are refusing to deal with the reality of what is happening in US politics as regards Russian interference, and the reality of Reade's completely bizarre sexualised adulation of Putin after 25 years of praising Biden - which is a massive red flag - it's pretty much a dead giveaway by itself that the allegation is a fraud.

These are not normal inconsistencies. What you are saying is that anybody can come up with a Walter Mitty story, no matter how ridiculous, and should still be believed. 

Eva Murry is highly relevant - because those who have sought to bring down Biden have continuously dragged in other cases as a way to deflect from the lack of credibility of Reade's story. 

In a way the argument has been moved on by the loonies - it's no longer about Reade's credibility, because they can't defend that - it's moved to the classic Republican deflection and bad faith trolling argument - "you're a hypocrite".

Woe betide anybody who judges each case on its merits and actually exercises some criitical thinking.

And yet when Eva Murry is brought up - suddenly you say its "not relevant". You want to debate on your own terms, except when those terms are thrown back at you and you run away.

I don't know how many times I have to say what should be obvious - the aim of this smear is not just to bring down Biden and keep Trump in power - it's to destroy the concept of #metoo entirely, and leave the pitch free for the rape lovers of the Republican party and especially the serial sexual abuser in the White House to get away scot free.

And using the Russia-sympathising dirtbag left to do his biddiing for him is a very handy way for Trump to avoid charges of hypocrisy.


Back to Top
Devrozex View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Location: Dublin
Status: Offline
Points: 7671
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Devrozex Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 11:30am
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Actual victims do not wait to time their "story" for maximum political effect, as Reade did.
 
Is that not what Blasey Ford more or less did?
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 11:44am
Originally posted by Devrozex Devrozex wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Actual victims do not wait to time their "story" for maximum political effect, as Reade did.
 
Is that not what Blasey Ford more or less did?

There is no comparison. Kavanaugh was basically unknown to most people until he was nominated for the Supreme Court. Blasey Ford promptly and confidentially filed a complaint when she found out he had been nominated. The Supreme Court requires an unimpeachable character more than any other position in US society.

Biden was US vice-president for 8 years and it's been known for years that he would be a candidate this time. He has been completely unavoidable in his public presence.

Democrats heavily vetted him for VP, and even more pertinently, the Republicans had opposition research crawling over the Obama/Biden candidacies in 2008 and 2012. They found nothing.

Reade posted "tic tok" on Twitter on March 3rd, with the clear implication that she was waiting for the exact right time to go public. She posted a Medium article in April 2019 about Biden which contained a different story to what she's running with now. She was clearly trying to bring down Biden already by then, but her story then contained nothing of incrimination, so she waited to change her story.

And when she approached Time's Up, she was not interested in actual legal representation, but in PR representation, to publicise the story as much as possible.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 214215216217218 334>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.00
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.