The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[fskimospy]

Funny thing is, the "Both Sides" accusers have fully embraced the very thing they claim doesn't exist. Congrats, I guess.

This shitty candidate has undermined the very integrity of his supporters. Now here we are acting like shit. Just like how Trump turned the Republicans into a special kind of shit.

Presumably at this point it has dawned on you why the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, right?

 

[sandorski]

How do I know why the police gave them to you? All I know is I asked them and some person I cannot identify said they did. If you think they are lying then go prove it. The burden is on you.

What the fuck point do you think you are making here?

This seems like a good way to get yourself banned. Just saying.

 

[sandorski]

Presumably at this point it has dawned on you why the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, right?

Like I pointed out, Bidens records are sealed. She did not make that up.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes, I’m sure the party where a president was impeached over allegations of sexual misconduct never dreamed that a Democrat could be accused of sexual misconduct. This is another case where you’re calling people morons and treading on dangerous ground, haha.

If you look back you’ll see exactly the bad faith argument you’re trying to make now said by Republicans at the time, and Democrats arguing against it. Nobody believes that and no one has ever believed that. Don’t be a moron.

If you don't believe women, don't adopt the slogan "Believe Women".

 

[fskimospy]

If you don't believe women, don't adopt the slogan "Believe Women".

So to be clear your argument is that if you’re going to have a slogan you must adhere to its literal meaning at all times?

Why do you people make argument so mind numbingly stupid that I’m positive you don’t believe what you’re saying.

 

[UberNeuman]

What the fuck point do you think you are making here?

This seems like a good way to get yourself banned. Just saying.

You and your pal BJ have been acting in an overly aggressive manner for the last few days. Both of you could use a little time out.

 

[sandorski]

You and your pal have been acting in an overly aggressive manner for the last few days. Both of you could use a little time out.

oh, it's me. Got it.

 

[Atreus21]

So to be clear your argument is that if you’re going to have a slogan you must adhere to its literal meaning at all times?

Why do you people make argument so mind numbingly stupid that I’m positive you don’t believe what you’re saying.

Yes, essentially. That's why I'm not terribly in favor of the pro-life label.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes, essentially. That's why I'm not terribly in favor of the pro-life label.

Holy shit lmao

 

[Blackjack200]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1255925895803465728

Pelosi and Biden at the top of the Party is just so goddamn appropriate. This is what the Democrats are now.

 

[fskimospy]

What the fuck point do you think you are making here?

This seems like a good way to get yourself banned. Just saying.

Wait do you seriously not get my point? It was not exactly subtle. If the person making a claim has no burden to back it up you can claim anything. That’s why the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim.

 

[HomerJS]

If you don't believe women, don't adopt the slogan "Believe Women".

Just curious, who here adopted that slogan?

My position has always been don't automatically trash the woman and let's here the evidence and any corroboration.

Either get her under oath or take an independent lie detector test.

Foe example the Larry King call, how do we know that was her mother?

 

[Starbuck1975]

So to be clear your argument is that if you’re going to have a slogan you must adhere to its literal meaning at all times?

Why do you people make argument so mind numbingly stupid that I’m positive you don’t believe what you’re saying.

No, it’s always been apparently clear that the slogan was insincere and politically opportunistic.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Wait do you seriously not get my point? It was not exactly subtle. If the person making a claim has no burden to back it up you can claim anything. That’s why the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim.

Brett Kavanaugh and Al Franken did not have that experience

 

[fskimospy]

No, it’s always been apparently clear that the slogan was insincere and politically opportunistic.

You’re projecting again.

 

[dank69]

...

Pelosi and Biden at the top of the Party is just so goddamn appropriate. This is what the Democrats are now.

And they will continue to be that until we mobilize to destroy the Republican party. Honestly, how do you not understand this?

 

[fskimospy]

Brett Kavanaugh and Al Franken did not have that experience

Sure Kavanaugh did, he then had his political allies block any attempts to establish that evidence and perjured himself multiple times on the stand. Did you forget this?

 

[Paratus]

It's almost as if the morons who came up with that slogan never dreamed of the present situation.

What the slogan meant was when a woman makes an accusation of sexual assault, take it seriously and investigate.


You won’t understand this because it hasn’t happened to you (nor me) but the majority of sexual assault complaints are not believed by authorities and dropped before being investigated. Ergo women are not “believed”.

Believe Woman doesn’t not mean believe an accusation irrespective of evidence as you fear and others in this thread wish. It means take the accusation seriously enough to perform a proper investigation.

This was NOT done during the Kavanaugh hearings as the investigation was purposely cut short to protect the nominee.

In other differences from this case that conservatives, “bothsiders”, and others may have missed, Blasey-Ford’s story was consistent and she testified under oath. Others with similar story’s wanted to come forward but were refused to be interviewed.

Reade on the other hand has changed her story, has not gone on legal record as of yet , and nation states and non governmental organizations have conducted propaganda and smear campaigns against Biden and for his presidential campaign opponent.

Not that any of this definitively says Biden did or didn’t commit the allegations just that anyone who says he did or don’t has jumped to a conclusion most likely due to their untenable biases.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, essentially. That's why I'm not terribly in favor of the pro-life label.

The Air Force generals are going to be so mad on the shooting range when they realize their slogan is ‘aim high’.

Apple too, when the janitor decides to clean the bathroom with a song instead of bleach they aren’t going to like it. But hey, they must think different at all times.

This is seriously so dumb. Slogans are mottos, which are defined as short phrases designed to encapsulate the ideals of a group. They are not meant to be taken literally. That’s just the definition.

 

[Blackjack200]

And they will continue to be that until we mobilize to destroy the Republican party. Honestly, how do you not understand this?

Have you lived in a state where the Republican party has been effectively defeated? Do you know how the Democrats act in those states? It's worse than how the national Party acts.

 

[Atreus21]

Just curious, who here adopted that slogan?

I don't know, but Joe Biden did. Stacy Abrams did.

Furthermore if you think it's foolish you only have to say so. Fskimospy doesn't appear to.

My position has always been don't automatically trash the woman and let's here the evidence and any corroboration.

Either get her under oath or take an independent lie detector test.

Fine, no argument.

Foe example the Larry King call, how do we know that was her mother?

We don't. For my part I thought that was pretty flimsy evidence. The people she spoke to about it constitute stronger evidence.

 

[compuwiz1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1255925895803465728

Pelosi and Biden at the top of the Party is just so goddamn appropriate. This is what the Democrats are now.

Piglosi and company are proof that you don't need high favorable ratings to get reelected. Hers are worse than Trump's.

 

[sandorski]

Wait do you seriously not get my point? It was not exactly subtle. If the person making a claim has no burden to back it up you can claim anything. That’s why the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim.

Except the Records are Sealed. Your request is utter nonsense.

 

[fskimospy]

Except the Records are Sealed. Your request is utter nonsense.

The only reason we have to believe there is anything in the records is her claim that some unnamed person on some unknown date told her so! The easiest way to get an idea of if that’s true or not is to simply ask her who she talked to and when. Then we can talk to that person and confirm what Reade is saying is accurate.

Doesn’t that sound super simple and easy?

 

[shortylickens]

The Democrats did not have any squeaky clean candidates to put up because nobody squeaky clean wants to be in the Democratic party.
They did put up plenty of decent people after the primary was finished we ended up with Biden as their champion. If he cannot beat Donald this November then we are in for four more years of bullshit. So maybe come up with a game plan that works or just quit entirely.
Either way the constant whining and shit slinging is accomplishing nothing and hurting Joe's chances this fall.