Derec
Contributor
Sure. But it's amazing that out of all the actual and potential candidates, Joe Freakin' Biden is what the Dems came up with.
-
Features
Tara Reade is a person who exists
- Thread starter PyramidHead
- Start date
Derec
Contributor
Australian beer brand, but for the Canadian market it is being brewed by Molson-Coors.
What does that have to do with anything though?
Elixir
Made in America
Who would you pick to represent and pursue the goals of the Democratic Party as you understand them?
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Well, my fault. I'm just confused. Angelo is always talking about senile child molestester. I just assume that he was talking about Trump?! I just assumed that he was drinking too much beer or something.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,223
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Derec
Contributor
From the 2020 field, I think the governors Hickenlooper and Bullock would have been the overall best representatives of the party. Senator Michael Bennett too. But neither of them ever caught on.
Elixir
Made in America
Interesting... those Colorado boys are pretty familiar to me, and I think they're both good guys. Especially Hoopenlicker. I hope to see him in the Senate. I don't think either of them is representative of the Democratic Party aspiration though.
Derec
Contributor
I guess the contemporary Democratic Party has shifted way too hard to the left and has also been infected by the disease of identity politics.
Who do you think would be a good "representative of the Democratic Party aspiration"?
angelo
Deleted
So you agree with me, up to a point. Just like in 2016, in 2020 Americans are going to be asked to vote for possibly two of the least qualified candidates in modern American history. The main difference between the loud mouth buffoon and the senile young girl molester is that the former puts America first and foremost, while the latter puts himself and his party first and America a distant third.
Nope. I don't agree with you at all. You have been told time and time again that all the things you condemn Biden for, Trump has done and much worse. You are perpetuating a double standard that is so fundamentally dishonest and reprehensible your arguments are as credible as this guy. In fact they are no fucking different. If you had an ounce of integrity you would have addressed why you are deliberately holding Biden to a different standard to Trump when you have been asked asked to over and over, but clearly you don't want to argue honestly. That's your choice, but you can go and get fucked if you don't expect to be treated like a partisan whore in that case.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,731
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I also find it disheartening--and I have nothing against Biden except his age. But: I don't really give any credence to Tara Reade's allegations. Not because she waited so long (even though one would have thought she might have come forward during his run as VP, either time) but because the events as she describes them seem implausible, no matter who I imagine in the role of aggressor.
What I think has happened is that those who oppose Trump are so very, very concerned about defeating him that they decided to light on the candidate who seems the absolute safest bet: old white man with a lot of name recognition and a lot of appeal for the masses.
Personally, I thought that Warren (although she's also long in the tooth), Harris, or even Klobuchar would have been better. I like Cory Booker as well. Hopefully, Biden chooses a very strong VP running mate and brings up some of the very well qualified candidates to prominent positions so we'll be in decent shape in 2024.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
angelo
Deleted
Temper temper! Do I need to post the creepy images of Biden invading women's and young girls space again?
Don't bother. I'm so angry I'm gonna leave this forum and never post here again.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,984
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/MCYAz06_Ppg[/YOUTUBE]
Yeah, creepy Joe Biden. Compared to the venerable Donald Trump. Skip to 2:15.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
It should be noted that this photo is clearly staged and I doubt seriously it would have been the photographer who suggested this particular pose. Regardless, Trump would have had to have approved of the staging had it been suggested by the photographer, so I'm not sure which is worse; that Trump staged the photo or that he approved of the suggested pose as being at all appropriate and how he wanted to portray he and his underraged daughter's relationship.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,984
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
That really is a creepy photo. He is looking at the camera like "wink wink nudge nudge".
Ivanka has to deadbolt the bathroom while she showers, meanwhile Donnie Jr and Eric are bemoaning, 'he never tries to watch me shower'.
Ivanka has to deadbolt the bathroom while she showers, meanwhile Donnie Jr and Eric are bemoaning, 'he never tries to watch me shower'.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
It looks like it's either the morning after, or just about to happen, with the blankets clearly disheveled as if they just emerged or are about to climb under. And she appears to be in some sort of a nighty or sexy, too short dress. It would be one thing if that were the only such photo, but as we all know there are many such photos taken of them throughout their lives, each one showing the same incestuous relationship between them. Combine those photos and the many disturbing comments Trump has made also over the years that only confirm the same incestuous relationship and I need a Silkwood shower.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,984
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Yeah, I suppose that is probably the absolutely worst part of the photo... it is on a bed! I can't think of any formal photos my family was involved with (either growing up or my own family), that involved shots on a bed or even in a bedroom.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Back to Reade, there is this bit that I don't think anyone has noted yet (emphasis mine):
And we know from this:
So, not only is the area in general a highly unlikely place for an assault as alleged, from her own recollections, the attack allegedly happened immediately after someone had just walked away from Biden. Which would have meant that person saw her and knew Biden was there and, more importantly, Biden knew that person saw Reade, etc. And, evidently, that person would still be within earshot at the very least, assuming that such a normally crowded area was somehow completely empty.
It doesn't prove it didn't happen, of course, but it certainly adds further doubt and would certainly imply that Biden was not just brazenly reckless, but sociopathic to the point of being a serial predator to think he could (a) not get caught by the normal heavy traffic and/or (b) not be at all concerned that the person he was just talking to could not only easily place Reade and Biden together, but would be close enough for Reade to scream out to, should Biden inexplicably choose that moment and place to sexually assault her.
Then there's another point that has always stood out to me. Reade makes it a point of saying that Biden stopped what he was doing apparently after seeing that she wasn't responding favorably to his advances, supposedly stating:
First of all, why would Biden refer to her with "come on man"? That's a common phrase for him, no doubt, but in relation to a woman? It sounds more like she used that phrase precisely because it's a common one for him to use, but again, in relation to a woman?
But, more importantly, included in her accusation is actually his exoneration in a sense. If that were true what he said, then it indicates that he was told by someone that she had expressed some form of sexual desire toward Biden--at least some form of tacit or I guess indirect consent via a third party that Biden had to have assumed knew what they were talking about--and that is why he acted as he did. And when it became clear to him that she did not and he was evidently lied to, he stopped his attack; he "pulled back immediately." Iow, when he discovered he did not have at least tacit consent, he stopped immediately.
None of that is indicative of a sexual predator, let alone of the sort that would assault a victim in such a brazen, high risk manner.
She then goes on to note:
So, having him forcibly insert his fingers into her vagina was not the "hardest thing" for her about the alleged incident, it was him saying "You're nothing to me. You're nothing" and then "You're ok, you're alright"?
But why would Biden say "You're nothing to me. You're nothing" and get angry and his hostility build toward her? He was supposedly told by someone that Reade had sexual desires about him. I mean, they're both grown adults, so the idea of someone telling Biden, "Hey, that girl Reade likes you" is sufficient for a grown man like Biden to translate into "then I will pounce on her and shove my fingers up her vag" is quite a stretch, but let's say that's what happened and Biden acts on this third party indication of consent toward his sexual advances. Again, by Reade's own testimony he stops immediately upon realizing she is NOT responding to what he's doing. So why does he get angry at her? The person he should be immediately angry with is whoever mislead him into believing that Reade was looking to hook up with him in the first place!
To her, he should have been immediately apologetic and swearing up and down that he was told by so-and-so that Reade had a thing for him and that he's so embarrassed and he never would have done what he did if it weren't for this person assuring him, etc., etc., etc.
And the choice of words. "You're nothing to me. You're nothing." Was she ever anyone to him? Did the simple act of someone telling Biden, "Hey, that girl Reade likes you" somehow get magically transformed into Biden thinking she was the greatest love of his life that meant everything to him, such that, when she rejected his advances, she now means nothing to him? And that is what she remembers the most about the whole assault!?
She also describes him whispering intimately in her ear, "did I want to go somewhere else, in a little voice" and:
So, again, according to her own depiction of the events, Biden seems to be acting on someone having told him that Reade wanted him, sexually, and is behaving toward her in an extremely intimate manner--with sexy whispers in a "little voice" about going someplace else to continue their sudden, but deeply felt, torrid love affair--only to be rejected by this woman who meant everything to him, but now, after refusing his sexual advances, immediately stopped touching her and turned angry with her--like a now jealous lover--and now she means nothing--NOTHING--to him! His passion turned to anger at the only woman to have denied his deep felt love.
Again, does ANY of that sound like any kind of rape or sexual assault? Or does it sound more like the inner fantasy of a young, mentally unbalanced woman obsessed with their boss who actually never gave two thoughts about her and who she blamed for firing her?
ETA: There's also this:
ETAETA: And, finally, for this post at least, there's this form the Vox piece that is likewise odd in her choice of words (emphasis mine):
But it wasn't "sexual," it was (allegedly) assault. But, again, she doesn't refer to the alleged event in a typical manner. For her, it wasn't a sexual assault, it was a "sexual thing." She wasn't attacked, so much as Biden's strong love for her was rejected by her. He pulled back immediately. "You're nothing to me! You're nothing!" Like a tele novella.
The more you dig, the weirder it gets, but it also comes into a kind of focus, depending on which version of the events you plug in and which version can be at all trusted.
And we know from this:
So, not only is the area in general a highly unlikely place for an assault as alleged, from her own recollections, the attack allegedly happened immediately after someone had just walked away from Biden. Which would have meant that person saw her and knew Biden was there and, more importantly, Biden knew that person saw Reade, etc. And, evidently, that person would still be within earshot at the very least, assuming that such a normally crowded area was somehow completely empty.
It doesn't prove it didn't happen, of course, but it certainly adds further doubt and would certainly imply that Biden was not just brazenly reckless, but sociopathic to the point of being a serial predator to think he could (a) not get caught by the normal heavy traffic and/or (b) not be at all concerned that the person he was just talking to could not only easily place Reade and Biden together, but would be close enough for Reade to scream out to, should Biden inexplicably choose that moment and place to sexually assault her.
Then there's another point that has always stood out to me. Reade makes it a point of saying that Biden stopped what he was doing apparently after seeing that she wasn't responding favorably to his advances, supposedly stating:
First of all, why would Biden refer to her with "come on man"? That's a common phrase for him, no doubt, but in relation to a woman? It sounds more like she used that phrase precisely because it's a common one for him to use, but again, in relation to a woman?
But, more importantly, included in her accusation is actually his exoneration in a sense. If that were true what he said, then it indicates that he was told by someone that she had expressed some form of sexual desire toward Biden--at least some form of tacit or I guess indirect consent via a third party that Biden had to have assumed knew what they were talking about--and that is why he acted as he did. And when it became clear to him that she did not and he was evidently lied to, he stopped his attack; he "pulled back immediately." Iow, when he discovered he did not have at least tacit consent, he stopped immediately.
None of that is indicative of a sexual predator, let alone of the sort that would assault a victim in such a brazen, high risk manner.
She then goes on to note:
So, having him forcibly insert his fingers into her vagina was not the "hardest thing" for her about the alleged incident, it was him saying "You're nothing to me. You're nothing" and then "You're ok, you're alright"?
But why would Biden say "You're nothing to me. You're nothing" and get angry and his hostility build toward her? He was supposedly told by someone that Reade had sexual desires about him. I mean, they're both grown adults, so the idea of someone telling Biden, "Hey, that girl Reade likes you" is sufficient for a grown man like Biden to translate into "then I will pounce on her and shove my fingers up her vag" is quite a stretch, but let's say that's what happened and Biden acts on this third party indication of consent toward his sexual advances. Again, by Reade's own testimony he stops immediately upon realizing she is NOT responding to what he's doing. So why does he get angry at her? The person he should be immediately angry with is whoever mislead him into believing that Reade was looking to hook up with him in the first place!
To her, he should have been immediately apologetic and swearing up and down that he was told by so-and-so that Reade had a thing for him and that he's so embarrassed and he never would have done what he did if it weren't for this person assuring him, etc., etc., etc.
And the choice of words. "You're nothing to me. You're nothing." Was she ever anyone to him? Did the simple act of someone telling Biden, "Hey, that girl Reade likes you" somehow get magically transformed into Biden thinking she was the greatest love of his life that meant everything to him, such that, when she rejected his advances, she now means nothing to him? And that is what she remembers the most about the whole assault!?
She also describes him whispering intimately in her ear, "did I want to go somewhere else, in a little voice" and:
So, again, according to her own depiction of the events, Biden seems to be acting on someone having told him that Reade wanted him, sexually, and is behaving toward her in an extremely intimate manner--with sexy whispers in a "little voice" about going someplace else to continue their sudden, but deeply felt, torrid love affair--only to be rejected by this woman who meant everything to him, but now, after refusing his sexual advances, immediately stopped touching her and turned angry with her--like a now jealous lover--and now she means nothing--NOTHING--to him! His passion turned to anger at the only woman to have denied his deep felt love.
Again, does ANY of that sound like any kind of rape or sexual assault? Or does it sound more like the inner fantasy of a young, mentally unbalanced woman obsessed with their boss who actually never gave two thoughts about her and who she blamed for firing her?
ETA: There's also this:
ETAETA: And, finally, for this post at least, there's this form the Vox piece that is likewise odd in her choice of words (emphasis mine):
But it wasn't "sexual," it was (allegedly) assault. But, again, she doesn't refer to the alleged event in a typical manner. For her, it wasn't a sexual assault, it was a "sexual thing." She wasn't attacked, so much as Biden's strong love for her was rejected by her. He pulled back immediately. "You're nothing to me! You're nothing!" Like a tele novella.
The more you dig, the weirder it gets, but it also comes into a kind of focus, depending on which version of the events you plug in and which version can be at all trusted.
Last edited: