U.S Politics |
Post Reply | Page <1 214215216217218 334> |
Author | ||||
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane I am MALDING Joined: 30 Nov 2014 Location: Trumpton Status: Offline Points: 44659 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Mulvanystrasse
Liam Brady Joined: 15 Jan 2012 Location: Boston USA Status: Offline Points: 2015 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
planning
Ray Houghton Football version of Comical Ali. Joined: 17 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 3836 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Zinedine Kilbane 110
Jack Charlton Man City records obsession Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Location: Dundalk Status: Offline Points: 9647 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Offline Points: 10345 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
There's a reason too why Ronan Farrow has not gone near this allegation despite Reade continuously asking him to take it on.
|
||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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 |
||||
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane I am MALDING Joined: 30 Nov 2014 Location: Trumpton Status: Offline Points: 44659 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane I am MALDING Joined: 30 Nov 2014 Location: Trumpton Status: Offline Points: 44659 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
reddladd
Jack Charlton Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Location: Virgin Islands Status: Offline Points: 6945 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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 |
||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Do you think they're an anti-white racist?
|
||||
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane I am MALDING Joined: 30 Nov 2014 Location: Trumpton Status: Offline Points: 44659 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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...
|
||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
Devrozex
Jack Charlton Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Location: Dublin Status: Offline Points: 7671 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Is that not what Blasey Ford more or less did?
|
||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 214215216217218 334> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |