The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[ivwshane]

Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a Russian Grifter GOP Operative. You have fully embraced Conspiratorial Thinking.

Lol I think you meant that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a rape apologist.

Oh irony...

 

[fskimospy]

Lol I think you meant that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a rape apologist.

Oh irony...

If someone with a history of lying says something and you think they might be lying again then you’re a rape apologist.

 

[ivwshane]

If someone with a history of lying says something and you think they might be lying again then you’re a rape apologist.

Pointing out inconsistencies of their stories also makes you a rape apologist.

Didn’t you know that the “believe women“ movement means that all women are to be believed without question. Without question Eskimospy!

 

[sandorski]

We have already been over this.

Yes we have, except the Check Fraud allegation. An Employer, singular, accused her of not paying a Bill, as I recall.

 

[sandorski]

Lol I think you meant that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a rape apologist.

Oh irony...

No, People who use Rape Apologist Talking Points use Rape Apologist Talking Points.

 

[sandorski]

Pointing out inconsistencies of their stories also makes you a rape apologist.

Didn’t you know that the “believe women“ movement means that all women are to be believed without question. Without question Eskimospy!

You haven't been following along very well. I have never accused someone of using Rape Apologist Talking Points for pointing out Story Inconsistencies.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes we have, except the Check Fraud allegation. An Employer, singular, accused her of not paying a Bill, as I recall.

No, her employer accused her of deceptively billing personal animal care to the business, which is theft. She also accused her of being serially dishonest.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Hi Mr. Strawman. It was never "believe all women". It was "believe women" - as in, don't immediately discount their stories.

It was always “believe women when politically convenient”

 

[Starbuck1975]

The corroborating evidence exists and is compelling that what happened?

1. Someone at Biden's office harassed her
2. Joe touched her hair and neck
3. Joe fingered her in the halls of the Senate

Because she's claimed all 3 at different times.

All three of those things can be true. Only one of those things needs to be true. At least one has a high probability of being true.

 

[eelw]

But let’s look at the two other recent political sexual assault allegations. Mueller and Fauci. How convenient both were used to smear someone in effort to help Trumpity Dumpity?

Timing is fishy. Against, when the movement against creepy hair sniffing Biden, why didn’t she come out then? Because her current claims are FALSE!!!!!

 

[soundforbjt]

But let’s look at the two other recent political sexual assault allegations. Mueller and Fauci. How convenient both were used to smear someone in effort to help Trumpity Dumpity?

Timing is fishy. Against, when the movement against creepy hair sniffing Biden, why didn’t she come out then? Because her current claims are FALSE!!!!!

She did, but when she didn't get the desired attention she changed her story.

 

[sandorski]

No, her employer accused her of deceptively billing personal animal care to the business, which is theft. She also accused her of being serially dishonest.

..But like I said, one Employer.

 

[fskimospy]

..But like I said, one Employer.

Who happens to have emails where Reade effectively admits to stealing the money.

Regardless, all you need is one. Her accusation is based entirely on her word and we can’t trust her word.

 

[HomerJS]

All three of those things can be true. Only one of those things needs to be true. At least one has a high probability of being true.

So the fact she claimed all to be true and they are all different events, doesn't effect the credibility of...let's...say...

ALL OF THEM?!?

 

[Jhhnn]

It was always “believe women when politically convenient”

So what? Is there some part of *utterly untrustworthy" you don't understand?

 

[fskimospy]

So what? Is there some part of *utterly untrustworthy" you don't understand?

His shtick is to pretend that Democrats were advocating for believing everything a woman said regardless of other circumstances and then concern trolling them based on his made up description of their position.

 

[Jhhnn]

She did, but when she didn't get the desired attention she changed her story.

You mean the part where her story was specifically not about sexual misconduct until she stealth edited it to say that it was?

 

[sandorski]

Who happens to have emails where Reade effectively admits to stealing the money.

Regardless, all you need is one. Her accusation is based entirely on her word and we can’t trust her word.

No, she seems surprised at the allegation and promises to pay.

 

[fskimospy]

No, she seems surprised at the allegation and promises to pay.

Wait, you’re saying she was surprised that she was not allowed to charge personal pet expenses to her employer? Are you fucking kidding me.

Also, according to her employer she never did pay so through deception she stole $1,400 from them. We should totally take her at her word though, haha.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, she seems surprised at the allegation and promises to pay.

How could you call me out over stealing $1400 after all I've done for you! I'm the real victim!

 

[sandorski]

Wait, you’re saying she was surprised that she was not allowed to charge personal pet expenses to her employer? Are you fucking kidding me.

Also, according to her employer she never did pay so through deception she stole $1,400 from them. We should totally take her at her word though, haha.

Sure seems like it reading the e-mail.

 

[UberNeuman]

Lol I think you meant that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a rape apologist.

Oh irony...

The irony increases when clearly there has been no rape.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So the fact she claimed all to be true and they are all different events, doesn't effect the credibility of...let's...say...

ALL OF THEM?!?

It’s one event, the severity of the accusation changed, which is not uncommon

 

[Starbuck1975]

So what? Is there some part of *utterly untrustworthy" you don't understand?

What part of credibly corroborated do you not understand?

 

[UberNeuman]

It’s one event, the severity of the accusation changed, which is not uncommon

I want it to be true now! NOW! NOW! NOW!

/lol