Will America back your health care? What if you've got a kid with a pre-existing?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:25 pm Message from Trump "if you've ever wanted to start your business? Now's your chance. Here's the capital, and America will back you"
Your hubris is really, really showing. Talk about sacrosanct nonsense.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:10 pmConservatives....that's the team I'm discussing.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:18 am which "team" wtheck are you discussing here, AFAN? Which "team" kept women from voting? Look up the votes on the 19th Amendment, especially ratification.
Trotting out the Rush Limbaugh game....literally the dumbest thing he's ever said...... where you act like American Conservatives freed slaves? Oh, totally. That's who did that. Conservatives.
With your silly Boston game.......calling yourself a Democrat, or even calling yourself a liberal....actually makes you a liberal?
Yeah, ok.
If you could provide a link to said lawsuit, that would be nice.CU77 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:38 pmWill America back your health care? What if you've got a kid with a pre-existing?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:25 pm Message from Trump "if you've ever wanted to start your business? Now's your chance. Here's the capital, and America will back you"
Is Trump's lawsuit to overturn Obamacare still going on?
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:29 amYour hubris is really, really showing. Talk about sacrosanct nonsense.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:10 pmConservatives....that's the team I'm discussing.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:18 am which "team" wtheck are you discussing here, AFAN? Which "team" kept women from voting? Look up the votes on the 19th Amendment, especially ratification.
Trotting out the Rush Limbaugh game....literally the dumbest thing he's ever said...... where you act like American Conservatives freed slaves? Oh, totally. That's who did that. Conservatives.
With your silly Boston game.......calling yourself a Democrat, or even calling yourself a liberal....actually makes you a liberal?
Yeah, ok.
Rush L. ....calling himself a "CONservative", doesn't make him so. And you treat him as one. He's not. He is a hypocrite. Just like Peter Brown is....and anyone that supports this spender In Chief.
Does the GOP even have a 2020 platform? For that matter, does the DNC?
Let's focus on YOUR team....the pretend CONservatives. Where is the GOP, fiscal responsibility? Or, are they all the same?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:43 amrunrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:29 amYour hubris is really, really showing. Talk about sacrosanct nonsense.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:10 pmConservatives....that's the team I'm discussing.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:18 am which "team" wtheck are you discussing here, AFAN? Which "team" kept women from voting? Look up the votes on the 19th Amendment, especially ratification.
Trotting out the Rush Limbaugh game....literally the dumbest thing he's ever said...... where you act like American Conservatives freed slaves? Oh, totally. That's who did that. Conservatives.
With your silly Boston game.......calling yourself a Democrat, or even calling yourself a liberal....actually makes you a liberal?
Yeah, ok.
Rush L. ....calling himself a "CONservative", doesn't make him so. And you treat him as one. He's not. He is a hypocrite. Just like Peter Brown is....and anyone that supports this spender In Chief.
Does the GOP even have a 2020 platform? For that matter, does the DNC?
hey what the hey!!
The DNC is now run by Nicole Wallace, Joe Scarborough, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Ana Navarro, and Rick Wilson. No one is a hypocrite. My hammy is pulled.
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:45 amLet's focus on YOUR team....the pretend CONservatives. Where is the GOP, fiscal responsibility? Or, are they all the same?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:43 amrunrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:29 amYour hubris is really, really showing. Talk about sacrosanct nonsense.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:10 pmConservatives....that's the team I'm discussing.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:18 am which "team" wtheck are you discussing here, AFAN? Which "team" kept women from voting? Look up the votes on the 19th Amendment, especially ratification.
Trotting out the Rush Limbaugh game....literally the dumbest thing he's ever said...... where you act like American Conservatives freed slaves? Oh, totally. That's who did that. Conservatives.
With your silly Boston game.......calling yourself a Democrat, or even calling yourself a liberal....actually makes you a liberal?
Yeah, ok.
Rush L. ....calling himself a "CONservative", doesn't make him so. And you treat him as one. He's not. He is a hypocrite. Just like Peter Brown is....and anyone that supports this spender In Chief.
Does the GOP even have a 2020 platform? For that matter, does the DNC?
hey what the hey!!
The DNC is now run by Nicole Wallace, Joe Scarborough, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Ana Navarro, and Rick Wilson. No one is a hypocrite. My hammy is pulled.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43505059
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A6n4pnHgwQ
In golf PB it is called a Mulligan. You screw up a shot and all is forgiven like it never even happened. You think the Dems are going to call the perverted hair sniffer out because of one little ole mistake? Trump brags about snatching p***y, Joe actually grabs him some. When i was in HS they called that finger f***ing. Today they just call it foreplay. I wish Teddy Kennedy was still alive to give us his opinion on sexually abusing women. He wrote the freaking book after all.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:23 am Why aren't the resident Dems here decrying Joe Biden!! The guy was just accused of sexual assault, and a police report was filed. Tres serieux!
I thought 'we believed all women'!!! Where's DocB?!?!
I mean, Tara Reade actually worked with Biden so we know they knew each other, whereas no one can even prove that Brett Kavanaugh had met that bunny-boiler Ford! What's good for the goose...
Okayokay, as you know I happen to believe in due process, so actually I do not instinctively believe a story from 25 years ago. Also, having lived through the Duke shenanigans with the lovely Crystal Mangum, I almost never believe a woman who seems to have more than justice on their mind.
I am simply asking the Dems here who echo the 'believe all women' line to perhaps walk back that insane proposition and say they're for due process not woke politics. While we are at it, ask Joe B to consider a male running mate and not kowtow to the woke left in choosing a woman.
That's all. Gracias.
Unless anything has changed Teddy Kennedy is still a beloved icon of the Democrat party. i wonder who grabbed more p***y in their day, Trump or Teddy? My money goes on Teddy with Trump a distant 2nd. I would love to read all the FLP toadies on this forum tell us a little bit about their beloved memories of teddie and tell us what a great guy he was. You collective bunch of FLP cowards will never throw Teddie under the bus will you. Who killed more women? Trump or Kennedy? As triple R would say... exactly...njbill wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:48 pm Well, you never took the time to respond to my detailed post about Tara Reade. Not surprising, I guess.
Given that the statute of limitations has long run, what exactly was the purpose of filing the complaint? Other than the obvious one, of course.
Aren’t you the one who pointed out that Ford’s father apologized to Kavanaugh’s father, from which you drew the conclusion that her father didn’t believe her?
So what say ye to the fact that Reade’s brother told her at the time that what she claimed happened was no big deal?
You might want to ask Al Franken about that.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:44 am But the real story here is not whether I believe her (I bet the story is somewhere in the middle, as always); no, the real story is why Democrats treat their own differently than others. It's almost as if there are no reliable principles here...
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:54 pm At the risk of going down the Pete Brown rabbit hole, I thought I would post my serious thoughts on the new Reade allegations against Biden.
In my view, the appropriate approach for addressing sexual misconduct allegations is that every person’s allegation should be given serious consideration while at the same time the accused’s right to a fair review of the matter needs to be respected.
Comparisons between Ford and Reade really aren’t that helpful to assessing Reade’s case. Each case has to rise or fall on its own facts and merits based on an analysis of the evidence that is able to be gathered.
Here’s what we know so far about Reade and her recent allegation (based on numerous articles easily locatable on a Google search):
1. She claims the incident occurred in 1993 when she was in her 20s and working for Biden. The time lag, in and of itself, is not dispositive (many old accusations of sexual abuse may well be true), but it is one factor to take into account. I’d only give it a little bit of weight, however.
2. Reade was fired by Biden’s office. So she’s biased. Now, someone who is biased can still be telling the truth, but to me this is not an insignificant factor. Being fired is a classic example of bias.
3. Reade never brought this up during Joe’s Senate, VP, and presidential runs. Why not? Again, not dispositive, but not irrelevant. Entitled to some weight, I think.
4. Last April, Reade joined the club of alleged Biden “hair sniffing, etc.” victims, saying something like that happened to her (various reports say she says he sniffed her hair, kissed the back of her head, and/or rubbed his finger up and down her neck). This was after Joe announced for president. Why didn’t she make her digital penetration allegation last year? That seems very odd to me. Suspicious? To me, yes. Not dispositive, but entitled to some weight. Now, I agree the hair sniffing and finger rubs were very strange, very likely inappropriate in many, if not all, instances, even bizarre. The appropriateness of shoulder rubs is a grayer area, I think. Depends of the circumstances, but certainly some (a lot?) could have been inappropriate. But this stuff is a far, far cry from digital penetration. I think we can all agree on that.
5. Reade says she told her mother, brother, and a friend “at the time,” presumably meaning shortly after the alleged 1993 incident occurred. To me it is credible that she would tell her mother and a friend about something like this. Less so her brother (but certainly possible). I can’t imagine my sister ever telling me something like that. She would have been way too embarrassed. Our mom, a friend? Yes. Reade’s mother has passed away. The friend says she discouraged Reade from coming forward because she did not believe she would see justice. What did she say to the friend? Her brother says her mother told her to go to the police. What, exactly, did Reade tell her mother? How does the brother know about the conversation? (Obviously there are logical explanations, but what are they?) Her brother said he had urged his sister to move past it, telling her "let it go" and "move on" because "guys are idiots." Arguably that suggests the brother didn’t think what happened was all that serious. What did Reade tell her brother? The brother and friend are biased, but that doesn’t mean they are not telling the truth. Will they agree to be interviewed, ideally on camera? Obviously, the devil is in the details on this point which could really help or really hurt Reade’s case. By far the most serious piece of this is that the mother alleged told Reade to go to the police. One would think she wouldn’t have said that if all her daughter said was that Biden tried to kiss her or something along those lines. So, then, the brother’s credibility on what Reade said to their mother and what mother said to daughter, and how he knows all this, is critical. His possible bias needs to be examined with a very critical eye. If the brother’s account credibly includes the above, plus the digital penetration detail, that would be very damaging to Joe.
6. Reade claims she went through official channels at the time to report sexual harassment in the workplace. Not clear whether the report was written or oral, or both, or what the report said. If written, does a copy still exist? Not clear to whom the report was allegedly given. If she did file a report, it is critical to know what it said. If the report lacked any mention of digital penetration or serious sexual assault, that would really hurt Reade’s position. Not kill it, but severely wound it. It may be that the evidence of such a report will remain inconclusive. Maybe it was only oral. Maybe a copy doesn’t exist. This is another factor where it is critical to know precisely what the evidence is. This one could swing heavily one way or the other, or (perhaps more likely) will remain uncertain due to insufficient evidence.
7. Biden’s executive assistant from 1982-2000 says she never heard reports of inappropriate conduct during the time she worked for Biden. She claims a report like this is something she would definitely remember. Not sure what she is doing now or if she has any current role with Joe. If she isn’t currently connected to him, that helps her credibility more than if she were still working for him. Yes, she could still be loyal to him, which could support a bias argument. And, yes, if she denies knowing about the hair sniffing, etc., that could undercut her credibility. Still, her account is entitled to some weight, though perhaps not a lot.
8. Best I can tell, this is the first serious sexual assault allegation against Joe. To me, that’s a pretty important point. Not dispositive to be sure because one assault is one too many, but it is much easier to believe a Trump accuser given his sordid history. He has done this so many times now that word of yet another incident hardly ripples the news pond anymore. The fact that no one else has apparently accused Joe of sexual assault is entitled to some weight.
9. Reade has not taken a lie detector test (as Ford did and passed). Not required, of course, but it would help her case if she did and passed. Obviously, it would destroy it if she failed. Since Reade, in effect, has the burden of proof in the court of public opinion, the fact that she hasn’t taken and passed a lie detector test prevents her from advancing the “burden” ball. If someone presses her to take a lie detector test, and she refuses, that would be entitled to some weight. If no one asks, I don’t think this factor cuts either way.
10. Reade hasn’t been cross-examined under oath. Very unlikely to happen unless someone files suit, but that means her story may not be tested under the crucible of cross examination. How she would do on cross would likely really help or hurt her case. Again, as with a lie detector test, she won’t have the chance to use a cross exam to help her case. I don’t think this factor cuts either way.
11. Reade was a Warren supporter. She now supports Bernie, and has done so on Twitter where she has also posted disagreements with Biden’s positions. This shows bias which is not unimportant. Maybe somewhat important.
So, sure. Test her case. No doubt Biden has private investigators looking into this now, as you would expect. Let’s see what they dig up. But it seems unlikely we’ll get a conclusive answer either way since there were no eyewitnesses. At the end of the day, the voters will have to make their own judgments based on the evidence that comes out.
Is this now coming from Bernie or Trump, or is this coming solely from Reade? Tea leaves suggest maybe Bernie. Reade acknowledges she is a Bernie supporter. Makes more sense than Trump who you would think would save this for later in the campaign and not spring it in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic which is consuming all of the oxygen in the room.
Biden would be advised to fully address this ASAP, assuming the story truly has not merit. Let it burn out while it will register very low on the publicity meter.
Dodging the question, and then moving on to something else. Rinse. Repeat.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:29 amYour hubris is really, really showing. Talk about sacrosanct nonsense.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:10 pmConservatives....that's the team I'm discussing.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:18 am which "team" wtheck are you discussing here, AFAN? Which "team" kept women from voting? Look up the votes on the 19th Amendment, especially ratification.
Trotting out the Rush Limbaugh game....literally the dumbest thing he's ever said...... where you act like American Conservatives freed slaves? Oh, totally. That's who did that. Conservatives.
With your silly Boston game.......calling yourself a Democrat, or even calling yourself a liberal....actually makes you a liberal?
Yeah, ok.
Uh oh. And every media outlet reported it. I thought you said that wouldn't happen?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:23 am Why aren't the resident Dems here decrying Joe Biden!! The guy was just accused of sexual assault, and a police report was filed. Tres serieux!
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:16 amYou might want to ask Al Franken about that.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:44 am But the real story here is not whether I believe her (I bet the story is somewhere in the middle, as always); no, the real story is why Democrats treat their own differently than others. It's almost as if there are no reliable principles here...
Ford’s father apologized to Bart’s father, but, to my knowledge, never said he did not believe his daughter. That is the conclusion you draw from his apology. I draw a different one: he was apologizing to an acquaintance for what the father had had to go through. On the other hand, Reade’s brother discounted at the time what his sister alleges happened.
You do understand that the fact that Reade has now filed a police report, some 25 years after the statute of limitations has run, severely undercuts her credibility, right?
BTW, I was referring to my earlier, detailed post on this subject, not my post from yesterday. Never heard back from you on that one.
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:27 amUh oh. And every media outlet reported it. I thought you said that wouldn't happen?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:23 am Why aren't the resident Dems here decrying Joe Biden!! The guy was just accused of sexual assault, and a police report was filed. Tres serieux!
Where's my steak dinner? Time to pay up.....
It was 77% at best !Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:28 am I feel 78% responsible for putting the pressure on them to do so!
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:54 pm At the risk of going down the Pete Brown rabbit hole, I thought I would post my serious thoughts on the new Reade allegations against Biden.
In my view, the appropriate approach for addressing sexual misconduct allegations is that every person’s allegation should be given serious consideration while at the same time the accused’s right to a fair review of the matter needs to be respected.
Comparisons between Ford and Reade really aren’t that helpful to assessing Reade’s case. Each case has to rise or fall on its own facts and merits based on an analysis of the evidence that is able to be gathered.
Here’s what we know so far about Reade and her recent allegation (based on numerous articles easily locatable on a Google search):
1. She claims the incident occurred in 1993 when she was in her 20s and working for Biden. The time lag, in and of itself, is not dispositive (many old accusations of sexual abuse may well be true), but it is one factor to take into account. I’d only give it a little bit of weight, however.
2. Reade was fired by Biden’s office. So she’s biased. Now, someone who is biased can still be telling the truth, but to me this is not an insignificant factor. Being fired is a classic example of bias.
3. Reade never brought this up during Joe’s Senate, VP, and presidential runs. Why not? Again, not dispositive, but not irrelevant. Entitled to some weight, I think.
4. Last April, Reade joined the club of alleged Biden “hair sniffing, etc.” victims, saying something like that happened to her (various reports say she says he sniffed her hair, kissed the back of her head, and/or rubbed his finger up and down her neck). This was after Joe announced for president. Why didn’t she make her digital penetration allegation last year? That seems very odd to me. Suspicious? To me, yes. Not dispositive, but entitled to some weight. Now, I agree the hair sniffing and finger rubs were very strange, very likely inappropriate in many, if not all, instances, even bizarre. The appropriateness of shoulder rubs is a grayer area, I think. Depends of the circumstances, but certainly some (a lot?) could have been inappropriate. But this stuff is a far, far cry from digital penetration. I think we can all agree on that.
5. Reade says she told her mother, brother, and a friend “at the time,” presumably meaning shortly after the alleged 1993 incident occurred. To me it is credible that she would tell her mother and a friend about something like this. Less so her brother (but certainly possible). I can’t imagine my sister ever telling me something like that. She would have been way too embarrassed. Our mom, a friend? Yes. Reade’s mother has passed away. The friend says she discouraged Reade from coming forward because she did not believe she would see justice. What did she say to the friend? Her brother says her mother told her to go to the police. What, exactly, did Reade tell her mother? How does the brother know about the conversation? (Obviously there are logical explanations, but what are they?) Her brother said he had urged his sister to move past it, telling her "let it go" and "move on" because "guys are idiots." Arguably that suggests the brother didn’t think what happened was all that serious. What did Reade tell her brother? The brother and friend are biased, but that doesn’t mean they are not telling the truth. Will they agree to be interviewed, ideally on camera? Obviously, the devil is in the details on this point which could really help or really hurt Reade’s case. By far the most serious piece of this is that the mother alleged told Reade to go to the police. One would think she wouldn’t have said that if all her daughter said was that Biden tried to kiss her or something along those lines. So, then, the brother’s credibility on what Reade said to their mother and what mother said to daughter, and how he knows all this, is critical. His possible bias needs to be examined with a very critical eye. If the brother’s account credibly includes the above, plus the digital penetration detail, that would be very damaging to Joe.
6. Reade claims she went through official channels at the time to report sexual harassment in the workplace. Not clear whether the report was written or oral, or both, or what the report said. If written, does a copy still exist? Not clear to whom the report was allegedly given. If she did file a report, it is critical to know what it said. If the report lacked any mention of digital penetration or serious sexual assault, that would really hurt Reade’s position. Not kill it, but severely wound it. It may be that the evidence of such a report will remain inconclusive. Maybe it was only oral. Maybe a copy doesn’t exist. This is another factor where it is critical to know precisely what the evidence is. This one could swing heavily one way or the other, or (perhaps more likely) will remain uncertain due to insufficient evidence.
7. Biden’s executive assistant from 1982-2000 says she never heard reports of inappropriate conduct during the time she worked for Biden. She claims a report like this is something she would definitely remember. Not sure what she is doing now or if she has any current role with Joe. If she isn’t currently connected to him, that helps her credibility more than if she were still working for him. Yes, she could still be loyal to him, which could support a bias argument. And, yes, if she denies knowing about the hair sniffing, etc., that could undercut her credibility. Still, her account is entitled to some weight, though perhaps not a lot.
8. Best I can tell, this is the first serious sexual assault allegation against Joe. To me, that’s a pretty important point. Not dispositive to be sure because one assault is one too many, but it is much easier to believe a Trump accuser given his sordid history. He has done this so many times now that word of yet another incident hardly ripples the news pond anymore. The fact that no one else has apparently accused Joe of sexual assault is entitled to some weight.
9. Reade has not taken a lie detector test (as Ford did and passed). Not required, of course, but it would help her case if she did and passed. Obviously, it would destroy it if she failed. Since Reade, in effect, has the burden of proof in the court of public opinion, the fact that she hasn’t taken and passed a lie detector test prevents her from advancing the “burden” ball. If someone presses her to take a lie detector test, and she refuses, that would be entitled to some weight. If no one asks, I don’t think this factor cuts either way.
10. Reade hasn’t been cross-examined under oath. Very unlikely to happen unless someone files suit, but that means her story may not be tested under the crucible of cross examination. How she would do on cross would likely really help or hurt her case. Again, as with a lie detector test, she won’t have the chance to use a cross exam to help her case. I don’t think this factor cuts either way.
11. Reade was a Warren supporter. She now supports Bernie, and has done so on Twitter where she has also posted disagreements with Biden’s positions. This shows bias which is not unimportant. Maybe somewhat important.
So, sure. Test her case. No doubt Biden has private investigators looking into this now, as you would expect. Let’s see what they dig up. But it seems unlikely we’ll get a conclusive answer either way since there were no eyewitnesses. At the end of the day, the voters will have to make their own judgments based on the evidence that comes out.
Is this now coming from Bernie or Trump, or is this coming solely from Reade? Tea leaves suggest maybe Bernie. Reade acknowledges she is a Bernie supporter. Makes more sense than Trump who you would think would save this for later in the campaign and not spring it in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic which is consuming all of the oxygen in the room.
Biden would be advised to fully address this ASAP, assuming the story truly has not merit. Let it burn out while it will register very low on the publicity meter.
You are a bully....only, you think you are not.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:20 amDodging the question, and then moving on to something else. Rinse. Repeat.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:29 amYour hubris is really, really showing. Talk about sacrosanct nonsense.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:10 pmConservatives....that's the team I'm discussing.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:18 am which "team" wtheck are you discussing here, AFAN? Which "team" kept women from voting? Look up the votes on the 19th Amendment, especially ratification.
Trotting out the Rush Limbaugh game....literally the dumbest thing he's ever said...... where you act like American Conservatives freed slaves? Oh, totally. That's who did that. Conservatives.
With your silly Boston game.......calling yourself a Democrat, or even calling yourself a liberal....actually makes you a liberal?
Yeah, ok.
Conservatives are responsible for everything I listed. All you have to do is say "you're right", and move on.
But EVERYTHING is an argument for you.
Every?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:27 amUh oh. And every media outlet reported it. I thought you said that wouldn't happen?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:23 am Why aren't the resident Dems here decrying Joe Biden!! The guy was just accused of sexual assault, and a police report was filed. Tres serieux!
Where's my steak dinner? Time to pay up.....
