2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Car crash TV. Whether he is or not, Biden coming across as if there is something to hide:

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1256209471765983234

It comes across as a man who had nothing to hide and is infuriated repeating it.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't know if she is truthful or not, but her account and the witnesses who back up her account from the time are many times more credible that Ford's were against Kavanaugh. I think the media should at least devote the same amount of reporting and investigation in this claim as they did with Ford. Accusations against leaders who would have impact on the way our country is run demand the same standards... wouldn't you agree?

Hey there. Have you backed down on your calls for a Senate hearing?

notobtuse

dark crystal wrote: »

How do you figure? There was a publicised hearing and everything where both sides were heard. Kavanaugh got his confirmation in the end.

What other due process should he have been afforded beyond that?

The fact that Ford had nothing, NOTHING, but her side of the story it never should have gotten to the point where it did and democrats and the media considered him guilty until proven innocent. Guilty until proven innocent is not due diligence.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

Hey there. Have you backed down on your calls for a Senate hearing?

Let's have a Senate investigation first. Then we'll see about a hearing.

2u2me

The Nal wrote: »

Biden on MSNBC in 20 mins or so. Will be interesting to see how aggressive he is denying it.

I just flicked it on to give it a look: The opening prologue is representative of how this whole thing works.

Mika starts with(in her most somber tone):

"I want to address the recent criticism(the media are receiving for covering the Tara Reade story).

We're going to get to what she alleges, back in '93, in a moment.

But first let's talk about the criticism by some, particularly on the right, that the media has not applied the same standard to this allegation against Biden as it did it's allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. We think that's a good thing. The media should not apply a Kavanaugh standard to Joe Biden.

First downplay the allegation, then label any criticism coming from the left as 'the right'. Then tell people how to think about it.

Expect thousands of new people to now be considered 'on the right'

TheCitizen

notobtuse wrote: »

If Democrats didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.

Got to love Nancy Pelosi’s defense of Biden: “Joe Biden is Joe Biden.” Translation: “Boys will be Boys.”

Nancy was right about one thing in her word salad defense that Joe Biden should have “due process.” Someone should remind her this was something denied to Brett Kavanaugh by Pelosi and her cronies. Of course she'd ignore it anyway.

So here we have a Trump fanboy attacking Joe Biden for inappropriate sexual behaviour. LOL

notobtuse

2u2me wrote: »

I just flicked it on to give it a look: The opening prologue is representative of how this whole thing works.

Mika starts with(in her most somber tone):




First downplay the allegation, then label any criticism coming from the left as 'the right'. Then tell people how to think about it.

Expect thousands of new people to now be considered 'on the right'

What else would you expect from MSLSD?

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

It comes across as a man who had nothing to hide and is infuriated repeating it.

Ah, finally he has something in common with President Trump so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlOH_iKxPus

notobtuse

TheCitizen wrote: »

So here we have a Trump fanboy attacking Joe Biden for inappropriate sexual behaviour. LOL

Do you get some sort of jollies from misrepresenting me? I have merely attacked the hypocrisy of the democrats and their media scribes in all this, and the apparent double standards... one for Republicans and another for Democrats.

2u2me

SnazzyPig wrote: »

Jesus, this thread has reached a new low.

That was funny. Implying sinister intent with your under-handed insinuations is a new low.

Billy Mays

MSLSD always cracks me up


Using Sarah Palin catchphrases ffs :pac: :pac:

Outlaw Pete

dark crystal wrote: »

do you believe her or not?

Do you believe her?

notobtuse

Billy Mays wrote: »

MSLSD always cracks me up


Using Sarah Palin catchphrases ffs :pac: :pac:

That phrase was originated by Mark Levin. Do your homework.

notobtuse

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Do you believe her?

Ouch!

dark crystal

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't know if she is truthful or not, but her account and the witnesses who back up her account from the time are many times more credible that Ford's were against Kavanaugh. I think the media should at least devote the same amount of reporting and investigation in this claim as they did with Ford. Accusations against leaders who would have impact on the way our country is run demand the same standards... wouldn't you agree?

Let's leave Blasey Ford aside for a moment. She got her hearing and her story was disbelieved to the extent that Kavanaugh got the job. Therefore, it's a bit of a non sequiter when discussing Reade's accusations v Trump's numerous accusers, who haven't been given such a forum.

You say Reade is way more credible because she has witnesses who 'back up her account'. Ok, let's take Kristin Anderson, for example. Kristin Anderson told The Washington Post that Trump put his hand up her skirt to her underwear in the early 1990s.

After the story’s publication, ABC News spoke to a friend of Anderson, Brad Trent, who said he heard the account from Anderson the same year of the alleged incident. Trent told ABC News that Anderson had told him she was sitting next to Trump at the old China Club bar in New York where he slid his hand up her thigh and “grabbed her p----.”

In a statement included in the Post story, then-Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks – now his communications director -- disputed Anderson's accusations. “Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity,” she said at the time. “It is totally ridiculous.”

Do you believe Kristen Anderson is credible?

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Corroborating witnesses that back up the account she told from back in 1993.

That literally means nothing

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Let's have a Senate investigation first. Then we'll see about a hearing.

I'll and again so. What legal mechanism is there for a Senate investigation?

notobtuse

dark crystal wrote: »

Let's leave Blasey Ford aside for a moment. She got her hearing and her story was disbelieved to the extent that Kavanaugh got the job. Therefore, it's a bit of a non sequiter when discussing Reade's accusations v Trump's numerous accusers, who haven't been given such a forum.

You say Reade is way more credible because she has witnesses who 'back up her account'. Ok, let's take Kristin Anderson, for example. Kristin Anderson told The Washington Post that Trump put his hand up her skirt to her underwear in the early 1990s.

After the story’s publication, ABC News spoke to a friend of Anderson, Brad Trent, who said he heard the account from Anderson the same year of the alleged incident. Trent told ABC News that Anderson had told him she was sitting next to Trump at the old China Club bar in New York where he slid his hand up her thigh and “grabbed her p----.”

In a statement included in the Post story, then-Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks – now his communications director -- disputed Anderson's accusations. “Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity,” she said at the time. “It is totally ridiculous.”

Do you believe Kristen Anderson is credible?

Haven't heard about that one. Couldn't say one way or another unless I went back and looked at all the reporting done on it.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Corroborating witnesses that back up the account she told from back in 1993.

That literally means nothing

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

I'll and again so. What legal mechanism is there for a Senate investigation?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Thursday that he expected former Vice President Joe Biden will "have to participate" in releasing information related to a sexual assault allegation from former Biden staffer Tara Reade.

I gather McConnell knows more about that than me.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/495467-mcconnell-biden-will-have-to-release-information-related-to-reade-allegation

dark crystal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Do you believe her?

notobtuse wrote: »

Ouch!

Ouch?

I believe she has a right to be heard and for justice to be served if her account can be proven. I believe that to be true of any accusation, not just those made of politicians. The difficulty with sexual assault cases without independent witnesses present, is that there is always a 'he said, she said,' aspect, which can be notoriously difficult to prove on either side.

My point being, Notobtuse can throw shade at Biden over one accusation, yet he is less prone to throw the same shade at Trump over 22 accusations. He then talks in terms of hypocrisy, which rankles somewhat, given his own biased position.

notobtuse

dark crystal wrote: »

Ouch?

I believe she has a right to be heard and for justice to be served if her account can be proven. I believe that to be true of any accusation, not just those made of politicians. The difficulty with sexual assault cases without independent witnesses present, is that there is always a 'he said, she said,' aspect, which can be notoriously difficult to prove on either side.

My point being, Notobtuse can throw shade at Biden over one accusation, yet he is less prone to throw the same shade at Trump over 22 accusations. He then talks in terms of hypocrisy, which rankles somewhat, given his own biased position.

Please stay on track. I have merely attacked the hypocrisy of the democrats and their media scribes in all this, and the apparent double standards... one for Republicans and another for Democrats. As the allegations were against two leaders (Biden and Kavanaugh) who would greatly impact decisions of the country, both should be treated equally.

The standard was set by Democrats in the Kavanaugh matter. I noted back then that when a similar situation would happen against a Democrat be prepared to play by the same rules and I predicted exactly what is going on today... hypocrisy and double standards. Sorry, but history doesn’t start today.

2u2me

dark crystal wrote: »

Let's leave Blasey Ford aside for a moment. She got her hearing and her story was disbelieved to the extent that Kavanaugh got the job. Therefore, it's a bit of a non sequiter when discussing Reade's accusations v Trump's numerous accusers, who haven't been given such a forum.

Your premise is faulty
Just because 'Kavanaugh got the job' doesn't mean Ford 'was disbelieved'.
Thankfully his jury wasn't one of public opinion. The presidency IS!

She raised millions of dollars on her go fund me. I bet you ask just about any democrat in the US they will say they believe her.
Now ask those same people about Tara Reade. Due process... something something... no facts.. something something...

dark crystal

notobtuse wrote: »

Haven't heard about that one. Couldn't say one way or another unless I went back and looked at all the reporting done on it.

You haven't heard her (almost identical) story? Yet you've heard Tara Reade's?

Hmm..biased media didn't seem to do their job very well with that one!

notobtuse

dark crystal wrote: »

You haven't heard her (almost identical) story? Yet you've heard Tara Reade's?

Hmm..biased media didn't seem to do their job very well with that one!

I agree.

dark crystal

2u2me wrote: »

Your premise is faulty
Just because 'Kavanaugh got the job' doesn't mean Ford 'was disbelieved'.
Thankfully his jury wasn't one of public opinion. The presidency IS!

She raised millions of dollars on her go fund me. I bet you ask just about any democrat in the US they will say they believe her.
Now ask those same people about Tara Reade. Due process... something something... no facts.. something something...

If those making the decision to hire Kavanugh had believed her account, he wouldn't be sitting on the SC right now. It's as simple as that.

I agree the presidency is reliant on public opinion, so I'm assuming you have an opinion on the numerous allegations against Trump?

BTW, The Gofund me page you refer to was to cover security costs after she and her family's lives were threatened. Just short of $650k was raised, not millions, as you claim and the remaining funds after her security costs were covered were donated to various charities.

There's absolutely nothing stopping Tara Reade from doing the same if she feels that she needs that same protection and cannot afford it. I'm sure there would be no shortage of people willing to donate to her cause, should she be willing to testify in public.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

Tara Reade has tried to track down the complaint she made against Biden back in 1993. Complaints of this kind were handled by the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices in 1993, which was replaced by the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) following the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995. But she was told the records would have been returned to Biden’s office. Yeah, like he would have held onto them so they could bite him in the ass with any future political ambitions. I’m confident they won’t find anything in his sealed Senate files. It’s democrats we’re talking about! Remember Sandy “docs in his socks" Burger? Right after Biden announced he was running for president his staff was given access and combed through his records. Think anything incriminating remains? If you do I have a bridge in New York to sell you. That complaint of Reade’s probably went directly in the ‘circular file’ and then they stripped her of duties supervising interns, stuck her in a small office without windows, and told her to go find another job. Face it... if people involved back in 1993 who were responsible for handling, dealing with, and holding onto such complaints are now lying and saying it never happened in order to protect Biden, they surely covered up for him back then as well. You don’t get to the point of running for president as a democrat without avoiding a lot of landmines.

Just on this - Tara Reade now says that she didn't report the assault , she now says that she lodged a complaint saying that "Biden made her feel uncomfortable" , which is not quite the same thing at all.

This is yet another shift of the story from Tara Reade.

https://twitter.com/marykbruce/status/1256197317235027968

The 1st reply to the above tweet makes a valid point - If this report was in fact lodged back in 1993 and was in the records , then the Obama/DNC teams would have found it back in 2008 or so when they were vetting Biden for VP and if it had merit , Biden would not have been selected.

Outlaw Pete

dark crystal wrote: »

I believe she has a right to be heard

I disagree. Public declarations of alleged sexual assaults do more harm than good and facilitate those who would wish to weaponize them.
.

and for justice to be served if her account can be proven.

Agreed on that but we don't need the court of public opinion to do that.

The difficulty with sexual assault cases without independent witnesses present, is that there is always a 'he said, she said,' aspect, which can be notoriously difficult to prove on either side.

But, with respect, here is where it would appear the hypocrisy lies, as you (and many others) were not so fair minded when Ford (and Trump's accusers) made their allegations, and that is what people take issue with. In the case of Ford, for example, you had a go at some of those that suggested her allegations might be politically motivated, arguing that she had nothing to gain, so why would she bother, and made that argument quite strenuously.

You were far from alone of course and indeed much of the metoo movement were all over the allegations against those two men, yet today, the vast majority of those same people (especially celebrity metoo-ers) aren't anywhere near as militant about believing women and are all suddenly very philosophical about the complexities of allegations which have a he-said/she-said aspect to them.

Biden is not the first case to expose that hypocrisy in the movement of course. Lots of the Hollywood metoo crowd picked and choosed just who it was they aligned their crosshairs on and surprise surprise, more often that not politics was the determining factor.

Which really is just yet more evidence that sexual assault allegations do not belong in the public domain. Verdicts fine, but otherwise no and I know the argument is that sometimes news of someone coming forward against a high profile individual can give someone else courage .. but I don't buy it. These pile on cases have more holes in them than a sieve and you can be full sure there are going to be even more allegations made before November.

notobtuse

Do ya’ll know Joe Biden headed up the efforts to “reform” Title 9 during his time as vice president? This ‘reform’ put in place has ruined the lives of young men by draconian proceedings on college campuses where “believe all women” WAS MADE MANDATORY, at the expense of due process, fairness, and human decency.

So now that the Joe Biden is on the wrong end of that which he 'championed' it’s “do as I say, not as I do?” Not someone fit to be president, in my opinion.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Just on this - Tara Reade now says that she didn't report the assault , she now says that she lodged a complaint saying that "Biden made her feel uncomfortable" , which is not quite the same thing at all.

This is yet another shift of the story from Tara Reade.

https://twitter.com/marykbruce/status/1256197317235027968

The 1st reply to the above tweet makes a valid point - If this report was in fact lodged back in 1993 and was in the records , then the Obama/DNC teams would have found it back in 2008 or so when they were vetting Biden for VP and if it had merit , Biden would not have been selected.

That assuming the people responsible for keeping such a report didn't put it in the 'circular file' to protect Biden. And even if they did file it, remember Sandy "docs in my socks" Burger? Biden's staff were allowed to comb through those sealed files. Lovely people those democrats are.