Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sideroxylon said:
It’s not playground name calling?
Click to expand...

Not really - it's identifying an obsessive Sanders fanatic with a penchant for aggressive bigotry (as noted by their fondness for slurs), and a very weak sense of ethics - like MAGAts, but few in number and Bernie fans.

If you remember the kids that screamed insults at John Lewis in 2016, or spent that year being Jimmy Dore, they're that sort of person.

Sorry, I'll call someone a racist, sexist, murderer, etc. if their behavior calls for it. Those are, again, descriptions, not insults. Also, the candidates that impressed me most? Harris, Warren, and *maybe* Castro. But since Maryland votes late (June 2nd, puched back due to the Virus, good call Hogan), I didn't bother committing.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Your argument rests on feigned ignorance and manufactured consent. It's a failure.
Click to expand...


That post was intended to be humorous. You raised an issue with my earlier post stating that a reason that Biden might not want people searching through is that they might take one letter from a chain of letters that taken by itself without the context of the rest of the conversation might appear to mean something different than it actually meant. My response was to take part of your post that taken by itself without the context provided by the rest of your post appeared to support my position when you were actually disagreeing with it.
 
theprestige said:
Nobody says he's required to provide anything. Why are you arguing against claims nobody has made?
Click to expand...

That was a response to your statement

Obviously, he's not required to present a complete collection for review.
Click to expand...

My point was that he's not required to present even an incomplete collection., which you now seem to agree with.

Now we actually agree on something.

But do we agree that a review of those documents wouldn't prove anything one way or the other about Reade's claims?

Do we agree that the whole idea of opening up that collection to a team of reviewers is a red herring and a waste of time?

Do we agree that it would be dishonest to claim that if the reviewers find nothing, that has any bearing on the truth value of Reade's claims?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that a negative result from a search of Biden's papers would not prove whether or not Reade filed a complaint. And I think that the journalists and prominent people calling for Biden to release his papers know this as well, and would make this point if Biden did release his papers and nothing was found (and that some wouldn't hesitate to point out that Biden could have thrown his copy in the trash).
 
Mumbles said:
Are people still pretending not to understand what a Bernie Bro actually is?
Click to expand...
Why yes, yes they are.

Almost every election cycle, there are one or more candidates who develop a fervent following, such as Ron Paul, Barak Obama, and Donald Trump. Sometimes these excessively fervent supporters are ignorant, obnoxious twits. Clearly, Bernie has such a following.

By the same token, people tend to generalize, politics can get heated, and labels are bandied about unfairly. I can understand how a Bernie supporter might get bent out of shape over this. But let's not pretend that Bernie isn't Ron Paul du jour.

When I supported Obama in 2008, it wasn't particularly fun to hear/read the negative comments about starry-eyed supporters. But it was true. Oh well.
 
varwoche said:
Why yes, yes they are.

Almost every election cycle, there are one or more candidates who develop a fervent following, such as Ron Paul, Barak Obama, and Donald Trump. Sometimes these excessively fervent supporters are ignorant, obnoxious twits. Clearly, Bernie has such a following.
Click to expand...

Bernie's "fervent supporters" tend to be young people who have grown up with social media and therefore are more noticeable than the "fervent supporters" of other candidates.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And a swing and a miss. I believe that is strike 3, or 4, or is it 6?
Click to expand...

Are we down to a single instance in which we have a definitive claim about an assault if she did not mention it in the complaint she filed? Her brother's claim is not credible since he didn't originally mention an assault but did so only after being contacted by the pro-Sanders founder of Current Affairs magazine. Her mother's phone call to Larry King doesn't prove anything because she only mentioned "problems" that she was not able to straighten out with her senator boss and "problems" could have referred to the neck thing that other women have complained about or they could have referred to her complaints about being bullied by co-workers. I believe that 1 of the 2 women corroborators referred to harassment rather than assault, so we don't know if this was also about the neck thing. That only leaves the other woman, who has claimed that she was told of an assault. Or are there others?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Are we down to a single instance in which we have a definitive claim about an assault if she did not mention it in the complaint she filed? Her brother's claim is not credible since he didn't originally mention an assault but did so only after being contacted by the pro-Sanders founder of Current Affairs magazine. Her mother's phone call to Larry King doesn't prove anything because she only mentioned "problems" that she was not able to straighten out with her senator boss and "problems" could have referred to the neck thing that other women have complained about or they could have referred to her complaints about being bullied by co-workers. I believe that 1 of the 2 women corroborators referred to harassment rather than assault, so we don't know if this was also about the neck thing. That only leaves the other woman, who has claimed that she was told of an assault. Or are there others?
Click to expand...
What part of 3,4 or 6 did you miss?

No, it's not a single instance. It seems some people keep taking each new bit of evidence as if nothing came before or after.
Some people had hopes that some contemporaneous evidence (aka a complaint about sexual assault filed at the time) would have strong weight. But then we find her back-peddling her claim she filed a complaint, maybe it wasn't an assault complaint? Maybe they won't be able to find any complaint filed.

None of the pieces of evidence you cite corroborate the assault part of her story. Nor are they consistent with other evidence.
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
Not really - it's identifying an obsessive Sanders fanatic with a penchant for aggressive bigotry (as noted by their fondness for slurs), and a very weak sense of ethics - like MAGAts, but few in number and Bernie fans.

If you remember the kids that screamed insults at John Lewis in 2016, or spent that year being Jimmy Dore, they're that sort of person.

Sorry, I'll call someone a racist, sexist, murderer, etc. if their behavior calls for it. Those are, again, descriptions, not insults. Also, the candidates that impressed me most? Harris, Warren, and *maybe* Castro. But since Maryland votes late (June 2nd, puched back due to the Virus, good call Hogan), I didn't bother committing.
Click to expand...
Dude you slur people all the time. And yes, your descriptions are slurs. And yes, you do have a penchant for them.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What part of 3,4 or 6 did you miss?

No, it's not a single instance. It seems some people keep taking each new bit of evidence as if nothing came before or after.
Some people had hopes that some contemporaneous evidence (aka a complaint about sexual assault filed at the time) would have strong weight. But then we find her back-peddling her claim she filed a complaint, maybe it wasn't an assault complaint? Maybe they won't be able to find any complaint filed.

None of the pieces of evidence you cite corroborate the assault part of her story. Nor are they consistent with other evidence.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he agrees with you...but when we look into it, the simple fact is this allegation doesn't hold up on inspection because she actually does have credibility, while the one against Kavanaugh from Ford *did*. She didn't change it, she had witnesses, the party was, as I recall, on Kavanaugh's calandar (the GOP's lawyer got right to that point when Lindsay Graham "suddenly" exploded in a rage and ended the entire process :rolleyes:), *and* she had multiple people over the decades that recall her telling them the exact same story.

And since then, the Bernie Bros have pushed two more assertions that also fell apart - one that he discussed the breasts of a 14-year old at the Delaware Gridiron Banquet (the then VP of the event stated that Biden would have been the first senator to attend, and he did not), and that he was hitting on women on the Senate floor a mere week after his first wife died (when the Senate was in recess, and when he was still a representative).
 
Last edited:
The more I know about Reade and her story's very real problems, the more I'm inclined to think something just ain't right with that woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom