Everything Joe Biden--Gaffes, Miscues, Touching, Songs

[Deranged Rhino]

8 hours ago, Warcodered said:

That's not really correct there are 7 women who stated he touched them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable and they felt was inappropriate and when further questioned after this accusation they didn't give any further allegations.

 

Still I'd rather neither candidate have these kind of accusations but I wouldn't lean towards "Grab them by the *****" Trump as being the less likely predator.

What’s funny is your willingness to ignore countless counts of visual evidence for Joe, while being so outraged over an out of context sound byte between two dudes big talking one another.  
 

It’s kind of like being outraged about someone running for office who once talked about robbing a bank, yet never did — then turning around and voting for Bonnie and Clyde. 

[KRC]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/ocasio-cortez-its-legitimate-to-talk-about-allegations-against-biden/ar-BB12DoFB?ocid=spartanntp

 

Pay particular attention to the Trigger Warning at the top of the page if you are a snowflake.

[B-Man]

 

 

"How on earth do you pretend that Joe Biden’s character is not instantly newsworthy? He’s the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for president."

 

"He was the vice president of the United States for eight years. He’s been a front-page news figure since the 1980s.

 

Thought experiment: Imagine that an allegation came forward against Ken Starr. We all know that, because Starr was involved in pursuing the Lewinsky story, any whiff of sexual impropriety would instantly be framed as a hypocrisy story even long after Starr has left public service. Biden chaired the Hill-Thomas hearings in 1991; how is that not the same thing?

 

We were constantly told that the Kavanaugh allegations should be judged by a low bar because the hearings were 'a job interview' and he’d be confirmed to a powerful, life-tenured job. Well, presidents have a lot more power than any individual Supreme Court justice, including the power to appoint lots of life-tenured federal judges and justices. Isn’t this Biden’s job interview?"

Writes Dan McLaughlin in "The New York Times Knows Nobody Believes It about Biden, Kavanaugh, and Sexual Assault" (National Review).

In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility.

 

The obvious difference is which political party supports the accused.

 

If you don't treat them the same, you're showing that you're doing partisan politics. It's what we saw in the 90s with Anita Hill and Paula Jones. I know I've treated like cases alike on a principled basis and I have done it for decades. But I don't see too many other people stepping up to that challenge.

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

[Warcodered]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

while being so outraged over an out of context sound byte between two dudes big talking one another.

So your saying when you try and talk big to someone you brag about sexually assaulting women...that's a thought process that seems ok to you?

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So your saying when you try and talk big to someone you brag about sexually assaulting women...that's a thought process that seems ok to you?

 

As an adult man, I know the difference between talk and action. 

 

Joe's on tape, assaulting women and children countless times -- on top of Reade's allegation. One is not like the other... unless you're a partisan. 

[Warcodered]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

One is not like the other... unless you're a partisan.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Warcodered said:

 

3 years later and you're still reading me wrong. 

 

(Just like you still likely think the Russia narrative was real)

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

3 years later and you're still reading me wrong. 

 

(Just like you still likely think the Russia narrative was real)

And we're still waiting for Trump to take down your elaborate conspiracy...any month now, I'm not really sure what soon means anymore.

[B-Man]

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Warcodered said:

And we're still waiting for Trump to take down your elaborate conspiracy...any month now, I'm not really sure what soon means anymore.

 

Like I said. You're in denial of reality. Everything I've discussed with you about Trump/Russia turned out to be entirely accurate, whereas your position has been shown to be 100% incorrect. Yet, you get mad at me for sharing information rather than whatever sources you rely on to get your information who blatantly lied to you for the past three years. 

 

That's a "you" problem. 

 

Like not being able to discern the difference between an out of context audio clip and actual visual evidence of assault. 

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Like not being able to discern the difference between an out of context audio clip and actual visual evidence of assault.

Out of context ? What exactly would be in context? Does he have to be actively assaulting someone for it to count?

[Doc]

29 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So your saying when you try and talk big to someone you brag about sexually assaulting women...that's a thought process that seems ok to you?

 

It was an extreme example, a la his "I can shoot someone on 5th avenue..."

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Out of context ? What exactly would be in context? Does he have to be actively assaulting someone for it to count?

 

In context: He can grab them by the *****. 

Out of context (your stance): He does grab them by the *****. 

 

But again, when you're so angry at the truth that you continue to fall back on those who lied to your face for three years about Russia/Trump, you get what you deserve. Which, in this case, is to be woefully under informed and hypocritical. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

17 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Out of context ? What exactly would be in context? Does he have to be actively assaulting someone for it to count?

Typically he would actually have to do it and not just talk about it vaguely, yes. Assuming you're taking about guilt and the American justice system, that is.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Typically he would actually have to do it and not just talk about it vaguely, yes. Assuming you're taking about guilt and the American justice system, that is.

 

Correct. 

 

But he's not interested in accuracy or truth, only having what he WANTS to be true to be validated. Because: feelz are more important than truth.

 

Meanwhile: 

 

 

 

(Ignore the actual evidence -- focus on the manufactured story instead. That's how low information people are controlled)

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

24 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Out of context ? What exactly would be in context? Does he have to be actively assaulting someone for it to count?

 

Are you making the case that two men talking about wanting to bang some chick is considered sexual assault?

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Are you making the case that two men talking about wanting to bang some chick is considered sexual assault?

 

Yes. He is. 

 

That's how poor his argument is when looked at in the context of reality, not partisanship. 

[Warcodered]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yes. He is. 

 

That's how poor his argument is when looked at in the context of reality, not partisanship. 

Right because I was clarifying what you meant when you brushed aside what Trump said as out of context and it apparently is that unless he's actively assaulting someone while he brags about assaulting someone it doesn't count.