It’s hard to believe anyone cannot see this is a made-up accusation that is among the first salvo in what will prove to be a very dirty campaign on Chump’s part.
And it’s not only the *first *salvo because Trump got caught loading the barrel a few months ago- we had an impeachment over it and everything.
That is President Tweety for now on. Biden has nicknamed him.
That is President Tweety for now on. Biden has nicknamed him.
I wouldn’t claim to know her well. I would say that the more I learn about her and her claims, the less credible I find them to be.
Well, we also had Christine “I’m not a Witch” O’Donnell and her niece and their “Biden talked about my niece’s boobs at an event! Every second of it forever seared into my memory! Wait, he wasn’t at that event? Well, it was the year BEFORE that then! He was halfway across the country during that event? Well, it totally happened anyway!!!” story.
I am so tired of Kavanaugh being brought up here since the circumstances are considerably different. Especially as in Kavanaugh’s case she came forward as soon as his name hit national news. However, in that case I said (and posted) her memories were so old as to be worthless and her testimony should not be counted upon. Same here but with like a half dozen other reasons for not believing Reade.
As well as Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars by Germond and Witcover
Ok, so the GOP and Kremlin pays off a known liar to make a false accusation vs a Candidate, so sure, let’s disqualify him. So then another false accusation, and another and another and another. Until no Dem candidates are left standing. 
There is already proof that GOP operatives have done exactly that in the case of Dr Fauci.
And so Biden is worse since he is a known supporter of womens rights and trump is just the opposite? :rolleyes:
And Lindsey Graham specifically said that that was going to be their strategy.
nm
Yep, and they paid off “Roe” also:
AKA Jane Roe finds documents disclosing at least $456,911 in “benevolent gifts” from the anti-abortion movement to McCorvey.
I think it’s fine to say we don’t know and it is certainly weird to say I am going after Biden in any way.
We don’t need everything wrapped up in a nice neat little package, that’s for TV.
But just because I read an article about how Tara Reade was bad at paying for sick horses and lied to landlords about her rent situation and I don’t jump to disbelieving her it doesn’t mean I am a bad man.
What if someone got fingered by Biden and then got rich horse people to pay her sick horse money to a vet? They still got fingered without consent.
Biden certainly has a reputation for liking to proposition staffers:
It is harmful to victims of sexual assault to say you know nothing happened here.
We don’t know.
Is that the citation you meant to post? Because I don’t think it means what you think it means.
That’s an opinion piece from October 2016 which uses a HRC-Trump “townhall” debate to launch a supercilious, misinformed and kinda lame attack-from-the-left on Clinton. More to the point, the author of this (I mention again) opinion piece never even mentions Biden. He spends a paragraph giving unwarranted weight to allegations against former VP Al Gore (which he brings up in response to Al’s work on behalf of Clinton 2016 campaign), perhaps that’s what you were pointing at?
If this is typical of your informational sources, maybe it would be appropriate to reexamine some of the things you “know” about politics. Just a suggestion.
The piece mentions “Joe Biden (who had a notorious reputation for “hitting on” senate staffers, including the wife of a longtime CounterPunch writer)”.
OK. Found it. Thank you, and I should’ve used the browser’s “Find on this page” function the first time.
My comment stands. An unsupported slur in a hit piece column (used in the same way the allegations against Gore are used, to smear Clinton by association and innuendo) is no basis for declaring “Biden certainly has a reputation…” for any specific behavior. It’s like citing Trump’s unpaid building contractors about his proclivity for paying off porn stars; maybe there’s something there, but your source is entirely speculative and biased. You might as well be ghost writing a Maureen Dowd column.
Ahh yes, I understood it perfectly. How many of you are pushing for investigation?
Versus the myriad of people saying “I’m voting for him anyway”, or simply disbelieve.
Tell me more about #metoo! While you then gloss over the fact that the belief (that would lead to an investigation) has been pushed aside because it’s your team.
You misunderstand.
I don’t think an accusation should be enough to disqualify ANYONE. But if it is good enough for the other guy, it better be good enough for YOUR guy too.
And yet, where was all this staunch belief of the same for Kavanaugh.
Not a single thing PROVEN, but here we have all manner of people telling us how he shouldn’t have been and shouldn’t be on the bench.
And then hypocritically want to explain the differences. Until you get some proof, expect laughter.
I think ALL accusations against Presidential candidates should be investigated fully, and the results published for the voting public to see.
How does that sound?
In the reality that I observed, the same people wanting unbiased investigation of the allegations against Kavanaugh (and who may have thought his record in government and in response to the allegations disqualified him from SCOTUS) are also wanting unbiased investigation of the Reade allegation. The differences between those two cases have been mentioned already, but those differences do exist and account for the differing levels of credulity afforded to each set of allegations by those people (me included).