Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

We know Reade changed her story from “Joe made me uncomfortable. No sexual misconduct” for 26 years to “Joe penetrated me” for the last few months. 

This isn't actually true. There are 4 different people who say that she told them about the actual penetrative assault in the early 1990s. She told other people different stories over the years, as well, with varying degrees of severity or detail.

This is being mentioned in the thread as if it is indicative of her being dishonest, but is it actually reasonable to think that women tell everyone the full details of their rape/assault stories for decades?

Quote

We know she changed her story about why she left DC from “to be with her husband” to “she was sick of American imperialism” in 2018 to “Biden blacklisted” in 2019. Again, why this change?

Again, what is "her story". You're acting like people's lives are uniform and they give one story to everyone at all times. This is silly.

When I left my first firm I told basically everyone that I was just looking for a new opportunity, but I actually left because the boss's son was embezzling and I didn't want to be part of that drama when it broke. I told the truth to maybe 3 and the lie to 20+. If you were to ask my wife and my brother under oath they would give you different stories.

And that doesn't even factor in the tremendous amount of painful psychology at play for sexual assault victims.

Expecting a perfectly consistent story for 30 years is insane.

Quote

However, do we know whether she ever changed her story about Putin? Does she still “like him a lot with his shirt off?” Does she still think Putin is “intoxicating to American women?” What about his “alluring combination of strength with gentleness?” Does she still think “putin’s Genius is his judo ability?”

What does any of that matter?

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

Just curious, is there anything that could possibly emerge that would cause you to think Biden didn’t do it?

I don't know. I can't know what will be revealed or said in the future so who knows.

There's no neat button to push to create 100% certainty in either direction and I don't need her destroyed to soothe my conscience in the voting booth.

Given what I know of Joe Biden personally from direct video and photographic evidence (liar, handsy, arrogant, doesn't admit fault) in addition to the Senate culture of harassment and sexualization of young women, I have no problem believing the details of Reade's accusation.

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

It disenfranchises voters because if the matter had been vetted earlier, there may have been another Dem who would have gotten the nomination.  Instead, they dropped out.  And they won't be on the ballot.

You should stop using the word "disenfranchises" because it actually has a meaning.

[tantric superman 4667]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You should stop using the word "disenfranchises" because it actually has a meaning.

You should stop looking like a pedantic fool when you fully understood my point, as did everyone on this board.

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

You should stop looking like a pedantic fool when you fully understood my point, as did everyone on this board.

I still don't understand your point.

Is your position that sexual assault victims either speak up fully and immediately or shut up forever?

[tantric superman 4667]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I still don't understand your point.

Is your position that sexual assault victims either speak up fully and immediately or shut up forever?

No. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

No. 

Cool, so could you articulate your point?

Sexual assault victims should pay careful attention to the careers of their rapists and make sure they time their revelations conveniently regarding the ambitions of their rapists?

I genuinely don't know what you're getting at and I have a feeling you don't, either.

[HenryJames 66049]

40 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Just curious, is there anything that could possibly emerge that would cause you to think Biden didn’t do it?

Bernie winning the nomination.

[tantric superman 4667]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Cool, so could you articulate your point?

Sexual assault victims should pay careful attention to the careers of their rapists and make sure they time their revelations conveniently regarding the ambitions of their rapists?

I genuinely don't know what you're getting at and I have a feeling you don't, either.

You don't know what I'm getting at because your comprehension needs work.  That's not surprising because most of your posts do exactly that - they misinterpret in some way what a person says and then you're off to the races.

[bad_teammate 13195]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

You don't know what I'm getting at because your comprehension needs work.  That's not surprising because most of your posts do exactly that - they misinterpret in some way what a person says and then you're off to the races.

So can you explain your point?

Because this...

I don't feel bad for Tara because she should have come forward earlier. 
+
I think it's more the promotion and perpetration of the "25 year/try not to fuck up and essentially disenfranchise the voters" rule.

... sounds like you're saying that women who are victims should either come forward immediately or shut up.

If I'm wrong, can you explain your point?

[bad_teammate 13195]

9 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Bernie winning the nomination.

This doesn't even make sense.

So in this conspiracy world, Joe drops out, the DNC powers give it to Bernie (lol), and I then ... stop believing Tara Reade? Why?

[bad_teammate 13195]

Surly: "There's no way Bernie's going to get the nomination."

B_T: "Yep, agreed."

Surly: "For god's sake, b_t, Bernie isn't going to get the nomination!"

B_T: "Mhmm, you're right. No way."

Surly: "Just get it through your head, b_t, he's not going to win! It's over!"

B_T: "I know. You're right. 100%."

Surly:

[tantric superman 4667]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If I'm wrong, can you explain your point?

I don't need to.  You just need to reread your post and you can easily see how you are plainly misinterpreting the very few words I typed and jumping to a completely irrational conclusion.

Which is what you tend to do very often.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Can someone else explain tantric's point to me?

[bad_teammate 13195]

Let's say that Tara Reade is lying to promote the political aspirations of Bernie Sanders.

Her allegations were revealed 3+ weeks after the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday. Her allegations were revealed after Biden won Michigan, Washington, Florida. Look at the schedule.

It's like robbing a bank knowing there's no money in it.

To believe that Reade is doing this for Bernie is to believe that (1) she is lying about being sexually assaulted, (2) has enough an idea about politics to think that her accusation will swing things, and (3) she's actually so dumb she doesn't understand anything about how the primaries and nomination convention work.

Piling improbabilities on top of improbabilities.

[henrygandorf 29190]

if we all agree that you’re 100% right about everything, then will you be quiet for a while?

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

if we all agree that you’re 100% right about everything, then will you be quiet for a while?

Putting me on ignore will make all your dreams come true.

[henrygandorf 29190]

not really my style. 

[Pig Bellmont 8717]

2 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

However, do we know whether she ever changed her story about Putin? Does she still “like him a lot with his shirt off?” Does she still think Putin is “intoxicating to American women?” What about his “alluring combination of strength with gentleness?” Does she still think “putin’s Genius is his judo ability?”

I’m trying really hard not to look for conspiracy everywhere, but of all the attorneys you can hire, you choose one who worked for Sputnik?

[bad_teammate 13195]

1) No you're not.
2) He represented multiple Weinstein victims, which seems more relevant than Russian conspiracy theorizing. (Maybe Reade is going to get a cush, high-paying, do-nothing job at a Russian oil firm after this?)

[Pig Bellmont 8717]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1) No you're not.
2) He represented multiple Weinstein victims, which seems more relevant than Russian conspiracy theorizing. (Maybe Reade is going to get a cush, high-paying, do-nothing job at a Russian oil firm after this?)

Maybe it’s nothing, but I wouldn’t hire someone who worked for Russia’s propaganda network to write an estate plan, much less make statements on my behalf to the press. Anyways the vox story was objective and let’s in why I’ve seen more discussion of Tara Reade on this thread than anywhere else. Voters won’t care about her

[bad_teammate 13195]

Since voters don't care (I agree), why are so many of you obsessed with concern trolling about optics?

It's because you have a desperate internal need to tear her story apart but feel guilty about doing it directly because to do it directly would be to admit that you're basically the same as most Republicans.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Putting me on ignore will make all your dreams come true.

I thought after the primary you'd drop the Bernie cult of personality "I'm 16 and this if my first election and I'll die if we don't win!" bit and go back to posting cool shit about killing billionaires and adding interesting political takes in your very own b_t way. And yet here we are.

I'd vote for a plan to condition you to only post cool shit by ignoring any of your dumbass posts about Joe Biden and such, and only reward you for new, interesting content. But there are still enough people here who can't resist taking the bait that it probably won't work.

Edited May 8, 2020 by BradInATX

[Patrick Bateman 3913]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Bernie winning the nomination.

Funny thing is the possibility of this happening is rather remote.  Everyone has suspended their campaigns, so it would most likely go to the Supers and Party insiders who don't want Bernie.  Bernie's best and maybe only chance was winning the nomination outright.

DNC has to plow ahead with Joe, for better or worse unless there's a tape or something else explosive.

 

[Biff Tannen 45682]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

if we all agree that you’re 100% right about everything, then will you be quiet for a while?

I've tried that before.  Doesn't work.  However the ignore feature is amazing at quieting him down.  As an aside, has anyone decided they are not voting or voting for the dotard now, thanks to this thread?

[bad_teammate 13195]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

But there are still enough people here who can't resist taking the bait that it probably won't work.

I think the issue here is that I might be the only active poster in this thread who isn't trolling.

[Biff Tannen 45682]

[henrygandorf 29190]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I think the issue here is that I might be the only active poster in this thread who isn't trolling.

you are 100% right.

[BradInATX 9208]

[bad_teammate 13195]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would define "trolling" here as "saying things you don't necessarily believe to get a reaction".

My belief of Reade (and victims in general) over Biden (and powerful men in general) is sincere. My disgust with the Democratic betrayal of #MeToo is also sincere. I believe what I'm saying, even if I'm stupid and wrong.

People bringing up Bernie and Russia conspiracies don't actually believe them, they're taking swings at me. You can say that's justified because I'm an awful piece of shit, but it's still trolling.

[tantric superman 4667]

Would me just showing off my rapist wit be considered "trolling"?

[zork 629]

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I would define "trolling" here as "saying things you don't necessarily believe to get a reaction".

My belief of Reade (and victims in general) over Biden (and powerful men in general) is sincere. My disgust with the Democratic betrayal of #MeToo is also sincere. I believe what I'm saying, even if I'm stupid and wrong.

People bringing up Bernie and Russia conspiracies don't actually believe them, they're taking swings at me. You can say that's justified because I'm an awful piece of shit, but it's still trolling.

Or maybe they believed it when it wasn't their guy(Kavanaugh) and don't when is(Biden), or just won't admit it.  Which means they are Susan Collins, amirite?

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by zork

[Pig Bellmont 8717]

7 minutes ago, zork said:

Or maybe they believed it when it wasn't their guy(Kavanaugh) and don't when is(Biden), or just won't admit it.  Which means they are Susan Collins, amirite?

 

If/when Reade goes under oath before Congress on national television the comparison could work, but she won’t even agree to be interviewed by Chris Wallace

[bad_teammate 13195]

Has she been called to testify and refused to do so? Or is the new standard for believing women now literal Congressional testimony?

Susan Collins was actually more progressive and thoughtful than many posters here and many liberal national commentators. The recent interview with Stacey Abrams is a key example of a prominent Democrat with a major national profile being sub-Republican on this issue. Also fascinating is the new development in the liberal mind of FOXNews as an important arbiter of truth.

#TeamSports

[zork 629]

9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

If/when Reade goes under oath before Congress on national television the comparison could work, but she won’t even agree to be interviewed by Chris Wallace

Hearings on the touchy feeler Biden?  When are those under oath hearings, him too, scheduled?  (you brought it up)

[Pig Bellmont 8717]

just pointing out that in assessing credibility there is one major fucking difference. Not that it’s impossible to believe a victim without under oath congressional testimony. But you knew that. 
 

oh that’s right, b_t says he’s *not* trolling. At least we all know that’s what zork is without the bad faith crying. Please tell me more about Susan Collins

[bad_teammate 13195]

18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

just pointing out that in assessing credibility there is one major fucking difference.

 

I don't see how probative it is unless Reade is afforded the same opportunity. All that would tell us is that women whose class and position give them greater visibility are more worthy than women of lower class and station.

Headline: Tara Reade's changing Biden assault story leaves her short on credibility

Pitting these two women's stories against each other for the purpose of tearing one down is disgusting.

Quote

Not that it’s impossible to believe a victim without under oath congressional testimony. But you knew that. 

I know that's possible, I'm just not sure you do.

If Blasey-Ford had given the exact same testimony in a different venue, would you have found it less credible?

Edited May 8, 2020 by bad_teammate

[ChickenSandwich 9834]

38 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

If/when Reade goes under oath before Congress on national television the comparison could work, but she won’t even agree to be interviewed by Chris Wallace

Will the GOP provide two of their own high powered attorneys to “help” her with her witness “statement” ala Ford?

[henrygandorf 29190]

44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Also fascinating is the new development in the liberal mind of FOXNews as an important arbiter of truth.

could you define "trolling" for us again?

[bad_teammate 13195]

33 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

could you define "trolling" for us again?

Saying something you don't believe for a reaction. I genuinely believe that multiple people here are being very selective regarding their opinion of FOXNews to suit their agendas. This is also true of liberal pundits and commentators who are also saying that Reade's credibility is hurt because she cancelled an interview with FOX.

What am I missing?

I fully admit that this temporary heralding of FOX as an important source is very temporary and will disappear immediately when it no longer suits a team sports agenda, but that's what is happening right now. Am I wrong?

 

[Message Board User 12395]

 

[henrygandorf 29190]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Saying something you don't believe for a reaction. I genuinely believe that multiple people here are being very selective regarding their opinion of FOXNews to suit their agendas. This is also true of liberal pundits and commentators who are also saying that Reade's credibility is hurt because she cancelled an interview with FOX.

What am I missing?

I fully admit that this temporary heralding of FOX as an important source is very temporary and will disappear immediately when it no longer suits a team sports agenda, but that's what is happening right now. Am I wrong?

yes, you are wrong.

people have thought it was a little hinky when she bailed on interviews with chris wallace/fox and cnn (mainstream cable news outlets) and instead did what amounts to a facebook/twitter live piece.  i don't care who it was with or what ties mk has to sexual harassment in the workplace.  to me, that's a coincidence (in that it doesn't add or subtract to her credibility on the subject).

yes, fox news is considered "mainsteam cable news".  and no, chris wallace does not equal hannity, tucker, f&f, or any of the trump mouthpieces on that network.  chris wallace is one of the last halfway decent, halfway objective professionals over there, and most liberals can see that.  also trump hates wallace, so that always helps.

also earlier, you said something like, "oh, before if you went on fox news, you were an agent of russia, but now it's totally cool" (or whatever, i'm not digging back through).  nobody said that.  several of us (including me) thought it was good that pete and bernie went on fox news to get in front of a different audience.  and yes, i am glad pete went on with wallace, and not some of the other nutballs.

what we're saying : a chris wallace interview on fox news is more reputable than an interview with an individual on social media, and when someone cancels more than one of these interviews, it's normal to get a little suspicious about the reasons.

what you're acting like we're saying : fox news is the only source of news i trust and if she doesn't go on fox news then she's full of shit.

fox news and chris wallace was the first interview i heard she bailed on.  then i heard that mj lee, don lemon, and others from cnn had her lined up, and she bailed on those too (although i think she had something with lee at some point).  if she had something on msnbc, i would also consider that mainstream on the same level, and would've had the same reaction.

again, what you're saying about fox news fits your definition of trolling. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

I do not care what lifelong Democratic operatives with deep ties to Biden and Clinton and Obama have to say about how it is UNTHINKABLE that Biden could do this. It's worse than useless.

No one fucking cares what Jennifer Palmieri thinks about this.

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

what we're saying : a chris wallace interview on fox news is more reputable than an interview with an individual on social media, and when someone cancels more than one of these interviews, it's normal to get a little suspicious about the reasons.

Is it also normal to never have anything specific to allege but just endlessly express the vaguest of ~*~*~ concerns ~*~*~? What, specifically, is the concern? What, specifically, is the suspicion?

Reade says she cancelled because she was receiving death threats. So she bailed on FOX and refused other widely-watched national TV and is doing an interview with a smaller independent journalist.

Is the idea that she's scared of intense powerhouses like Chris Wallace and Don Lemon and is going to get coddled by Megyn Kelly? Would it make sense to wait to actually see the interview before using it as yet another weapon against a potential rape victim?

Quote

also earlier, you said something like, "oh, before if you went on fox news, you were an agent of russia, but now it's totally cool" (or whatever, i'm not digging back through).  nobody said that. 

Yes, some felt it was OK to use FOX (I am one of them), but are you seriously denying that Bernie (specifically) going on FOX was not called out by anyone here? That's silly, henry.

There are people here who are completely changing their story (temporarily) regarding the importance and validity of FOXNews. I believe that 100%.

Quote

what you're acting like we're saying : fox news is the only source of news i trust and if she doesn't go on fox news then she's full of shit.

Nope. I was saying that people were talking about an interview on FOX (with Wallace or otherwise) as if it was fundamentally different than an interview with Megyn Kelly. It's not. Please explain in specific terms what the differences are in terms of the interviews themselves. With sugar on top.

 

Quote

fox news and chris wallace was the first interview i heard she bailed on.  then i heard that mj lee, don lemon, and others from cnn had her lined up, and she bailed on those too (although i think she had something with lee at some point). 

Did she "bail on" those others or just not agree to interviews?

[henrygandorf 29190]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did she "bail on" those others or just not agree to interviews?

she bailed.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-says-tara-reade-cancelled-on-interview-after-biden-denied-allegation-she-had-security-concerns/

[JimmyJames 12271]

I thought she was gonna vote for old Joe. Now she thinks he should just drop out.

Color me shocked. 

[henrygandorf 29190]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is it also normal to never have anything specific to allege but just endlessly express the vaguest of ~*~*~ concerns ~*~*~? What, specifically, is the concern? What, specifically, is the suspicion?

so you're pivoting to a different question?  now you're admitting you were wrong about the characterization of our fox opinions (you were trolling) and now you're once again questioning what the suspicions might be?

the suspicions are that she's not being truthful.  nothing has been proven (or ever will be likely) about who is or isn't telling the truth, but when people say something looks bad, that means they think she seems less credible.  nobody here is actively involved.  everyone here is "playing pundit", just like you.  

these are all things you know, but are acting purposely obtuse about.  the problem is that most people here (specifically the ones expressing the most "concern" over her story) won't engage you.  i choose to engage you, but don't feel nearly as strongly about it as they do.  but i try to explain it, because you act like all you want is an explanation and answers to your many questions. 

then you come back at me about my ~*~concerns~*~.  sigh.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Is BT still on his pro trump 2020 crusade? Haven’t bothered to check in awhile but figured that was still the case. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Saying something you don't believe for a reaction. I genuinely believe that multiple people here are being very selective regarding their opinion of FOXNews to suit their agendas. This is also true of liberal pundits and commentators who are also saying that Reade's credibility is hurt because she cancelled an interview with FOX.

What am I missing?

I fully admit that this temporary heralding of FOX as an important source is very temporary and will disappear immediately when it no longer suits a team sports agenda, but that's what is happening right now. Am I wrong?

 

Have you reached the point where you are actually on here defending FoxNews? 

LOL.

[Message Board User 12395]

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so you're pivoting to a different question?  now you're admitting you were wrong about the characterization of our fox opinions (you were trolling) and now you're once again questioning what the suspicions might be?

It depends on who the people in "our" is.

Some here attacked the idea of going on FOX and are now ~*~*~ concerned ~*~*~ that Reade didn't go on FOX.
Some here didn't attack the idea of going on FOX and are now ~*~*~ concerned ~*~*~ that Reade didn't go on FOX.

If you're in the first group, you're the "our" I'm talking to. If you're not, you're not.

Quote

she bailed.

OK, and her stated reasoning is consistent.

Quote

the suspicions are that she's not being truthful.

And what is the difference between Wallace and Lemon and Kelly regarding truthfulness?

Can anyone explain this?

Are Chris Wallace and Don Lemon capable of some anti-lying cone-of-truth that Kelly isn't? Are people less likely to lie on big TV shows as opposed to smaller venus? What's the logic?

[henrygandorf 29190]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And what is the difference between Wallace and Lemon and Kelly regarding truthfulness?

Can anyone explain this?

Are Chris Wallace and Don Lemon capable of some anti-lying cone-of-truth that Kelly isn't? Are people less likely to lie on big TV shows as opposed to smaller venus? What's the logic?

if she cancelled on fox/cnn/msnbc and instead did an interview with someone else on fox/cnn/msnbc, nobody would've said shit.  she cancelled on multiple major cable news interviews, and popped up on a social media interview that most people didn't know even exists (or at least i didn't).

doing this is making some around here question her credibility.  it's not some giant leap in logic.  

you already know this, which is why you're trolling.  go move your goalposts someplace else.