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

[transplantbillsfan]

17 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

[billsfan1959]

19 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

#1: He's not Donald Trump 

 

#2: He's not Donald Trump 

 

Those truly are my answers both as a person AND from a policy perspective 

 

Your hatred for Trump is evident. I don't understand it, but, like so many people I know, it is clearly a driving force for you. From a policy perspective, you are right, Biden is not Trump; however, I was hoping for a little insight into what Biden policies would lead you to vote for him. From a personal perspective, on the other other hand, I believe you are kidding yourself if you think Biden is any different / better than Trump. 

[billsfan1959]

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Mostly what I think about is how someone like you, likely someone I’d otherwise enjoy having a beer with and watching a Bills game, maybe discussing politics here or there, how someone like you could support attempting to steal my vote and unseat a President who picked up the support of 60,000,000 other Americans.  I’d not do that to you.  

 

Agree 100%. I try to be intellectually consistent in my views. For me, impeachment is a last resort and should never be used to remove a sitting President merely for political reasons. I did not like Bill Clinton, as a person, for many of the same reasons I didn't like Trump, and so many other powerful men, including Biden: because he used his power to prey on women. However, I am able to separate my personal dislike from issues of job performance and I never supported the Republican zeal to impeach Clinton because I felt it was politically motivated. 

[Keukasmallies]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Agree 100%. I try to be intellectually consistent in my views. For me, impeachment is a last resort and should never be used to remove a sitting President merely for political reasons. I did not like Bill Clinton, as a person, for many of the same reasons I didn't like Trump, and so many other powerful men, including Biden: because he used his power to prey on women. However, I am able to separate my personal dislike from issues of job performance and I never supported the Republican zeal to impeach Clinton because I felt it was politically motivated. 

 

Is there truly ANY attack against the serving administration's policies, appointments, or statements of position that isn't politically (and personally) motivated?  Is there one single issue that isn't met with a Schiff-like barrage of innuendo, animus, and/or personal disparagement?  Is there an elected official on the national stage able to argue against an issue without injecting personal diatribes?  I think not.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

#metoo #believeallwomen #butonlyiftheyreaccusingconservatives

[Doc]

7 hours ago, BillStime said:

Say it ain’t so....

 

Chris Wallace: President Trump does not ‘come in with clean hands’ on sexual assault allegations

 

Really?  Wow, that's breaking news, Chris!

 

What he should have said is: "Joe Biden does not come in with clean hands on sexual assault allegations."  We already know about Trump.

[SoCal Deek]

31 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Really?  Wow, that's breaking news, Chris!

 

What he should have said is: "Joe Biden does not come in with clean hands on sexual assault allegations."  We already know about Trump.

Exactly! The Tara story removes morale conduct from the arsenal of weaponry that EITHER candidate can wield against the other.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

PS: This comment came out pretty conveniently on a day where a couple stories broke, but also days after another broke... but my guess is you just utterly dismissed the stories because of the source 

 

 

No, I’m a thinking man.  I would dismiss this story because the author Is a hypocrite.  I’d dismiss it because she wrote so eloquently of inconsistencies in Ms. Reade’s story, downplayed Joe Biden’s decades of fondling women as just Joe being Joe, and repeated a leftist talking point of Trump acknowledging assault of women when he did not.  I’d dismiss it further because she wrote so passionately on Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ballsy Ford just a short while ago, participating in yet another liberal attempt to disembowel a man accused by an operative with no specifics, no corroboration, allies and sources that rejected her claims outright.  I’d dismiss her story because she allowed powerful members of her tribe (Gilibrand, Pelosi and the like) to follow one course of action (character assasination of a man with a wife and two beautiful little girls who looked up to him) under the guise “it’s a job interview!” while enabling and supporting a man who himself acknowledges inappropriate and unwanted physical contact.  I’d dismiss this story because, inexplicably, this author quotes Joe Biden’s #2, apparently the only female in America who knew nothing about Biden’s roaming hands, and accepted it on face value. 
 

Mostly though, I’d dismiss it because the rules of the game were set by Joe Biden, #believeher, #metoo, and all the powerful members of your tribe that lined up behind politics to destroy Kavanaugh, Trump, Clarence Thomas and so many others. 
 

All you’re doing here is taking an opinion piece, with an author who bets the people who support her are so blinded by partisan hatred that they will participate in the enablement of powerful men abusing women so long as they are the right men abusing the correct women. 
 

I’ve linked to another short story written by the author with a decidedly different tone.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/1/17917532/brett-kavanaugh-truth-ralph-devils-triangle-speeches-i-believe

 

Why do you accept this &$#@ and let them drag you around by the nose?   You’re part of the problem. 

Edited May 16, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

So weird.  We hear all the time that the behavior of a victim post-assault literally mirrors the journey of TR, but she’s apparently the ONE who’s story should be discounted.  Oddly, there are probably 500 tapes and videos of Joe Biden groping, fondling and petting women, and many more of him being abusive, fingers pointed in faces, harsh words and racist statements.  
 

What did you think of the handling of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination?  

14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Exactly! The Tara story removes morale conduct from the arsenal of weaponry that EITHER candidate can wield against the other.

They never had a moral conduct arrow in their quiver.  It’s an illusion, and I know you know that, but it needs to be pointed out. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

5 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Oh, they are gonna tear her apart. Everything she ever said, did, or looked at that can be misconstrued, misstated, and misrepresented to make her look bad, will be. The Biden camp and "msm" tried ignoring her and then people started digging and found contemporaneous evidence that suggests Joe Biden did something to her. The 1990s court papers where her husband said she was abused, the Larry King interview, the friends that acknowledged she talked about it at the time it happened lend credence to her claims.

When her story surfaced several years ago, it was ignored. One article. It started to gain some traction this time around, and it was still ignored... until the Larry King interview was found. Then, suddenly, it was a story, and Joey Fingers had to answer a few (not a lot, a few) questions. It doesn't help that there are a ton of photographs with Joey Fingers being Creepy Joe. He just seems like a guy who could take something too far.

Did he do it? No idea.  But, it certainly is interesting that we went from #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen to the old 70s and 80s rape trial defenses of disparaging the victim and putting her on trial.


 

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

Interesting. I wonder what part he found most "skillful": The part where he ignored it, the part where he denied it, the part where he acted like an idiot about his Senate records, the part where #metoo got sold out because we no longer automatically believe women without conclusive proof, or the part where his camp sent the liberal attack dogs to smear her.

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Interesting. I wonder what part he found most "skillful": The part where he ignored it, the part where he denied it, the part where he acted like an idiot about his Senate records, the part where #metoo got sold out because we no longer automatically believe women without conclusive proof, or the part where his camp sent the liberal attack dogs to smear her.

Who cares, he’s running against Trump, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still beat that idiot 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 hours ago, Keukasmallies said:

 

Is there truly ANY attack against the serving administration's policies, appointments, or statements of position that isn't politically (and personally) motivated?  Is there one single issue that isn't met with a Schiff-like barrage of innuendo, animus, and/or personal disparagement?  Is there an elected official on the national stage able to argue against an issue without injecting personal diatribes?  I think not.

 

 

 

...1000% DEAD on........try to have a constructive dialogue......hatred, foment, animus and vitriol lead the way BEFORE even getting to the topic......look around these parts.....best that gang can do is "always attack....never defend..", NEVER offering an alternative......strangely, I remember reading a Nixon bio years ago and the author said Nixon's mantra was, yup, "always attack...never defend".......the thought of "respect", once part of our moral, social fiber, disappeared years ago......pretty sad.....

 

....found it...the author was Roger Stone...

"Stone revels in his Watergate pedigree, noting almost apologetically that he was never accused of breaking any law. “The Democrats were weak, we were strong,” he told me. (Stone’s rules: “Attack, attack, attack—never defend” and “Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.”) "

Edited May 16, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

35 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Oh, they are gonna tear her apart. Everything she ever said, did, or looked at that can be misconstrued, misstated, and misrepresented to make her look bad, will be. The Biden camp and "msm" tried ignoring her and then people started digging and found contemporaneous evidence that suggests Joe Biden did something to her. The 1990s court papers where her husband said she was abused, the Larry King interview, the friends that acknowledged she talked about it at the time it happened lend credence to her claims.

When her story surfaced several years ago, it was ignored. One article. It started to gain some traction this time around, and it was still ignored... until the Larry King interview was found. Then, suddenly, it was a story, and Joey Fingers had to answer a few (not a lot, a few) questions. It doesn't help that there are a ton of photographs with Joey Fingers being Creepy Joe. He just seems like a guy who could take something too far.

Did he do it? No idea.  But, it certainly is interesting that we went from #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen to the old 70s and 80s rape trial defenses of disparaging the victim and putting her on trial.


 

Reading the story about the enablers who shared time in his various campaigns etc, you get nearly to the end before reading that a when a powerful Senator engages in “stroking a woman’s hair” it’s a “complicated dynamic”. That’s interesting. 

 

Btw BG, given that many of the female staffers purportedly interviewed for the story would likely be aged 50+, your thoughts on the impact of being from a different generation and all that involves?  Seems to me they spend a lot of time rationalizing touching/groping/sniffing as sort of life in that world at that time.  I hesitate to say it, but it seems an awful lot like enabling to me.

 

I’ll be offline for a bit today, if you get a chance, let me know what you think. 

[Doc]

25 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Who cares, he’s running against Trump, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still beat that idiot 

 

Wrong.  And when the debates roll around, there will be no doubt Trump will win.

[Buffalo_Gal]

31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Reading the story about the enablers who shared time in his various campaigns etc, you get nearly to the end before reading that a when a powerful Senator engages in “stroking a woman’s hair” it’s a “complicated dynamic”. That’s interesting. 

 

Btw BG, given that many of the female staffers purportedly interviewed for the story would likely be aged 50+, your thoughts on the impact of being from a different generation and all that involves?  Seems to me they spend a lot of time rationalizing touching/groping/sniffing as sort of life in that world at that time.  I hesitate to say it, but it seems an awful lot like enabling to me.

 

I’ll be offline for a bit today, if you get a chance, let me know what you think. 

He was not on a list of “creepy” male senators that female staffers told each other to avoid in the elevators on Capitol Hill.

You can bet money he would have been at some point.  Joe Biden didn't just decide to start sniffing hair in public one day. There was probably inappropriate contact many years ago, for many years, out of the view of the camera, and no one told him to cut it out. That would be enabling by staffers.

None of the people interviewed said that they had experienced sexual harassment, assault or misconduct by Biden. All said they never heard any rumors or allegations of Biden engaging in sexual misconduct, until the recent assault allegation made by Tara Reade.

The only way that is true (no rumors), is a shame factor. What did I do to cause him to do XYZ? He's never done that before, it must have been something I did.  Or the rationalization factor, "Oh, that's just Joe!" or "He doesn't mean anything by it." or "I must have read him wrong."

The interviews revealed previously unreported details about the Biden office when Reade worked there, such as an account that she lost her job because of her poor performance, not as retaliation for lodging complaints about sexual harassment, as Reade has said.
 

Other recollections from former staffers corroborated things she has described publicly, such as Biden’s use of the Senate gym and a supervisor admonishing her for dressing inappropriately.

That will be the story from now on. That was not what first came out (she lost her job because she filed a complaint), but they are going full on blaming the victim, she's crazy, yada yada. She may be, but  this a very old approach to discrediting a sexual assault victim.

“The one thing about Joe Biden is, he is a man of the highest character and that’s why these accusations are so surreal and just can’t comport with the man I worked with,” said Marcia Lee Taylor, a senior policy advisor on the Judiciary Committee, where women held leading roles when Biden served as chairman.

I mean come on... this guy sold out his country for money from the Ukraine (where the Obama administration participated in the coup election over there),  sold out to China for money, he participated in a soft-coup here... the inappropriate touching and sniffing in front of cameras... "highest character" uh huh, what was she paid or given in exchange for that quote? (Assuming it is the real quote and not twisted.)

I could go piece by piece on the article, but you asked if his staff "enabled" him - that would be (most likely as I cannot know for certain) a yes. He's been in a position of high power (it doesn't get much higher than Senator and Vice President of the United States), and people would not be telling him "no" very often. And, if they did tell him "no," like it or not, their career in politics, and probably out of politics too,  would be over.

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

He was not on a list of “creepy” male senators that female staffers told each other to avoid in the elevators on Capitol Hill.

You can bet money he would have been at some point.  Joe Biden didn't just decide to start sniffing hair in public one day. There was probably inappropriate contact many years ago, for many years, out of the view of the camera, and no one told him to cut it out. That would be enabling by staffers.

None of the people interviewed said that they had experienced sexual harassment, assault or misconduct by Biden. All said they never heard any rumors or allegations of Biden engaging in sexual misconduct, until the recent assault allegation made by Tara Reade.

The only way that is true (no rumors), is a shame factor. What did I do to cause him to do XYZ? He's never done that before, it must have been something I did.  Or the rationalization factor, "Oh, that's just Joe!" or "He doesn't mean anything by it." or "I must have read him wrong."

The interviews revealed previously unreported details about the Biden office when Reade worked there, such as an account that she lost her job because of her poor performance, not as retaliation for lodging complaints about sexual harassment, as Reade has said.
 

Other recollections from former staffers corroborated things she has described publicly, such as Biden’s use of the Senate gym and a supervisor admonishing her for dressing inappropriately.

That will be the story from now on. That was not what first came out (she lost her job because she filed a complaint), but they are going full on blaming the victim, she's crazy, yada yada. She may be, but  this a very old approach to discrediting a sexual assault victim.

“The one thing about Joe Biden is, he is a man of the highest character and that’s why these accusations are so surreal and just can’t comport with the man I worked with,” said Marcia Lee Taylor, a senior policy advisor on the Judiciary Committee, where women held leading roles when Biden served as chairman.

I mean come on... this guy sold out his country for money from the Ukraine (where the Obama administration participated in the coup election over there),  sold out to China for money, he participated in a soft-coup here... the inappropriate touching and sniffing in front of cameras... "highest character" uh huh, what was she paid or given in exchange for that quote? (Assuming it is the real quote and not twisted.)

I could go piece by piece on the article, but you asked if his staff "enabled" him - that would be (most likely as I cannot know for certain) a yes. He's been in a position of high power (it doesn't get much higher than Senator and Vice President of the United States), and people would not be telling him "no" very often. And, if they did tell him "no," like it or not, their political career would be over.

 

It's also possible they only interviewed unattractive women.  Sorry to be so blunt, but if I'm a man in a position of power, I'm not sexually harassing just anyone. 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

It's also possible they only interviewed unattractive women.  Sorry to be so blunt, but if I'm a man in a position of power, I'm not sexually harassing just anyone. 

 

Possibly, although what is attractive to one person may be unattractive to the next person. Beauty is subjective.

 

[B-Man]

 

 

WELL, SO MUCH FOR BIDEN POSING AS A MODERATE: 

 

 AOC and John Kerry Will Lead Biden Climate Change Panel.

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Possibly, although what is attractive to one person may be unattractive to the next person. Beauty is subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Possibly, although what is attractive to one person may be unattractive to the next person. Beauty is subjective.

 

True and I was going to go back and edit in "unattractive (to him) women."