It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
At worst we would survive a Biden presidency. At best, we would suffer untold horrors under a second Trump term. The decision on who to vote for is easy.
I have not argued against this. In any way. Just to make sure on this forum.
Anyone choosing not to vote for Biden is telling the world they're totally cool with a second term of Trump.
I would have voted for Biden roughly 15 to 17 times in November if I was american.
Just want to make sure on this forum.
I wish everyone would. But I also believe that fundamentally no one in a democracy should be forced to vote for something. I think that goes against the very essence of democracy. So the better thing in "a perfect world" with a system with only two choices, would be for the Biden-voters to argue for and get 2-3 people to vote for him too, to cover up for those choosing to vote with their heart for something else (green party, vote blank etc). And respect that.
But I also understand what is at stake "in the real world" come this fall.
Because believe it or not, but your choice of president affects the whole world ("leader of the free world", etc)
There's still time for the Democrats to do something about this. I have no idea what, but Biden won't officially be the nominee until this summer and the election isn't until the fall. Biden's name isn't written in blood anywhere.
It will never be proven true or false. There is no evidence. Everyone involved knows this. Based on the people claiming to have been told about this by Reade, there should be plenty of reasons to pursue charges and let a jury decide if it even goes that far. An allegation is just that until proven otherwise. At least follow the legal measures in place. Yeah, I get it, the justice system is flawed, but it's in place to help prevent people from being wrongfully accused and for victims to seek some sort of legal ramification.
I am inclined to believe victims who come forward and in that same breath we also know that an extreme action like the one Biden is being accused of is usually not just a one-off incident. There should be plenty of other red flags of aggressive physical contact and behavior (go ahead and cue the shoulder rubs and hair sniffing - those aren't on the same level). Just look at any other high profile individual who has allegations made against them. There are several private accusations and public instances that corroborate their pattern of physically aggressive behavior.
Anyway, if this is somehow proven to be true, Biden would need to do a lot to keep my vote and should probably withdraw. It's not a purity test, it's just the right thing to do. We already have a sexual predator in the office who has bought his way out of everything, no way should we ever be promoting a legally proven sexual predator no matter how many years ago it happened.
In an ideal world, Trump and Biden supporters would learn to abandon their candidate and seek a 3rd party or replacement to the establishment's choice, but we know all that will get us is an asshole republican every time.
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
The 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct
Rachel Crooks, left, Jessica Leeds, center, and Samantha Holvey attend a news conference, Monday, Dec. 11, 2017, in New York to discuss their accusations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump.
Mark Lennihan/AP Images
At least 25 women have accused President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct since the 1970s.
Renewed attention has been brought to the allegations amid the #MeToo movement and a national conversation concerning sexual misconduct.
Trump has repeatedly denied the accusations, denouncing his accusers as "liars."
In June 2019, columnist E. Jean Carroll accused President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room the mid-1990s.
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
Everyone knows why the economy is collapsing. Heaping trillions more on the debt looks even crazier now. It will be interesting to see if/how Democrats try to pitch those initiatives with the price tags.
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
Everyone knows why the economy is collapsing. Heaping trillions more on the debt looks even crazier now. It will be interesting to see if/how Democrats try to pitch those initiatives with the price tags.
medicare for all is DOA, so there is that. will probably strengthen obamacare which will be much less expensive. corporations will be taxed more, as will millionaires and billionaires, so there is that.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
Everyone knows why the economy is collapsing. Heaping trillions more on the debt looks even crazier now. It will be interesting to see if/how Democrats try to pitch those initiatives with the price tags.
Universal healthcare should be easy to pitch because it's cheaper than private. If Americans could look at it logically.
My worry is that some Democratic strategist who has been wrong about everything since Al Gore gets in Biden's ear and convinces him that he needs to get in front of this by saying something, by taking responsibility for something, by apologizing for something, and we get a tear-filled interview in which Biden apologizes for "mistakes" in the past but never states what those are, etc, as if that will fix anything. And I worry about this even if he didn't do it, and I remain unconvinced that he did. Hell, Al Franken apologized and ever since has been claiming he didn't do it.
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
Well, the 12% of Bernie dem primary voters who voted for Team Trump Treason shouldn’t have any guilt voting for Sleepy Woke Joe.
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
Everyone knows why the economy is collapsing. Heaping trillions more on the debt looks even crazier now. It will be interesting to see if/how Democrats try to pitch those initiatives with the price tags.
Universal healthcare should be easy to pitch because it's cheaper than private. If Americans could look at it logically.
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
Everyone knows why the economy is collapsing. Heaping trillions more on the debt looks even crazier now. It will be interesting to see if/how Democrats try to pitch those initiatives with the price tags.
Universal healthcare should be easy to pitch because it's cheaper than private. If Americans could look at it logically.
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
Everyone knows why the economy is collapsing. Heaping trillions more on the debt looks even crazier now. It will be interesting to see if/how Democrats try to pitch those initiatives with the price tags.
Universal healthcare should be easy to pitch because it's cheaper than private. If Americans could look at it logically.
Edit: especially during a pandemic
Here are the hurdles, as I see them today:
- The federal government has performed horribly managing public health here - Private insurance companies are covering COVID 100% while Medicare is still requiring beneficiaries to pay applicable deductibles and coinsurance for treatment - It is not cheaper than private. Studies that show that make multiple assumptions that range from challenging to crazy. - VT and CA explored implementing it and couldn't overcome the cost hurdle - M4A polls favorably as long as it's optional. If it's replacing private insurance, people line up against it hard.
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
there's that purity test again.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
But what if he is? He likely will be.
You are making an assumption that we find out Biden's accusation is true. How is not reasonable to then ask the same question about Trump's 25 accusations?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
Everyone knows why the economy is collapsing. Heaping trillions more on the debt looks even crazier now. It will be interesting to see if/how Democrats try to pitch those initiatives with the price tags.
medicare for all is DOA, so there is that. will probably strengthen obamacare which will be much less expensive. corporations will be taxed more, as will millionaires and billionaires, so there is that.
But never, ever, ever to pre-Reagan levels.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
there's that purity test again.
Yes, you do need to be little more pure than a known sex offender. And if this turns out to be true, that's what he'll be.
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
I said yesterday that this was the strongest corroboration, but it's still not evidence. Second, I don't understand how she respects him if he raped her. I asked you that twice and you haven't helped me square that
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".
Or am I wrong?
And I don't feel the need to go some "The T-800 before they turn on the switch that makes him being able to learn human behavior" level and question why and how a sexual assault victim did not behave in the way, you or I find "logical".
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why? A naked Arnold, before entering the bar and getting clothes, boots and a motorcycle would not understand that.
But an Arnold switch to learn how humans work, I reckon would.
Should be noted again that YOU M. Ruseel yourself has said that at this time in history being a woman and being called "nothing but an oral sex machine" or whatever Bloomberg had said to women around him during the late 80s/early 90s -- but was anything out of the ordinary. That is how men were joking, or whatever you defended him with.
Now delve into that culture a bit more, and put yourself in a woman's shoes being in that world. Just look at Anita Hill. Then look at Biden during the Anita Hill hearings. Then back at Anita Hill again.
1. "out of respect for the senator" means she respects the senator. It's the same statement. In English, there isn't a different, it's just a sentence construct.
Seems there is.
Not to go inside Taras head and trying to figure out what happened between her telling her mom and mom talking and perheps condensing things about it on the phone with Larry King -- but out of respect for, I could imagine could be about destroying his life, destroying his job as a senator, causing problems for him and his family etc.
And also, you did not respond:
My friends teenage sister got sexually assaulted at a party, and decided not to file charges because it would stir things up among their group of friends and she felt she would be responsible for causing a lot of problems for everyone involved -- even with her being a victim. Now tell me - why?
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?
You are still not making sense.
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?
I don't see how anything has changed?
Neither has been found guilty in court to my knowledge.
What is your point?
Please make sense. Or I will have to mute you (1 out of the limit of 5). This takes time. Cut to the chase.
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?
Because a year ago, you were opposed to trying Julian Asstrange on social media for the very credible allegation of rape. Now that its Sleepy Woke Joe, you're trying to hang him without any semblance of due process. I'm asking you why one and not the other?
And you still haven't answered my question about whether I could walk into a police station in Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden and make an allegation of sexual assault, 8, 12 or 27 years after the alleged incident.
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?
2. I don't know the statute of limitation on sexual assault in Sweden.
My question to you is - how much shame should a person feel for carrying water on internet forum for and "if the glove don't fit acquit-defending a person who's by all probable accounts is a "slime ball" and sexual assaulter instead of just admitting it is highly probable but seeing reasons to vote for the slime ball sexual assaulter anyway?
sorry, but at this time in history, in america we do not have time for your purity test. we either vote biden, or trump wins again. i do not see what is so difficult to comprehend. you can't vote here, so do not shame the rest of us for trying to improve our country.
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?
I would.
i absolutely would as well.
biden was not my first choice, or my 3rd, or my 10th. but he is the nominee and i will support our nominee. fuck trump.
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.
I'm not voting for Biden either way
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?
Pick Jared Polis as VP? The Democrats this cycle, Biden included, haven't really focused on issues that I look to them for - less militarism, criminal justice reform, drug policy. There's been much more of a focus on stuff I disagree with - government run health care to varying degrees, student loan forgiveness, etc. A lot of stuff that I think is bad economic policy.
that is rich, considering we are in the midst of economic collapse right now and trump has already played the biggest guns that could potentially save it.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
Everyone knows why the economy is collapsing. Heaping trillions more on the debt looks even crazier now. It will be interesting to see if/how Democrats try to pitch those initiatives with the price tags.
Universal healthcare should be easy to pitch because it's cheaper than private. If Americans could look at it logically.
Edit: especially during a pandemic
Cheaper for who? At the top line, how do we know it's cheaper? I think many assume it will be cheaper for them personally, but in theory if you're above the median income line, you may end up paying more than private, since it would likely be a progressive tax structure.
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
there's that purity test again.
Yes, you do need to be little more pure than a known sex offender. And if this turns out to be true, that's what he'll be.
Why are you afraid to answer my question? I'll ask again:
What if we find out this accusation is true....and then we also find out all of Trump's 25 accusations are true.
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
there's that purity test again.
Yes, you do need to be little more pure than a known sex offender. And if this turns out to be true, that's what he'll be.
Why are you afraid to answer my question? I'll ask again:
What if we find out this accusation is true....and then we also find out all of Trump's 25 accusations are true.
Both are the nominees.
What would you do?
I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing not to vote for someone who
potentially assaults women, 1 or 20 it doesn't matter.
I'd personally boycott the whole fucking thing and demand both the Republicans and Democrats renounce them as candidates. That's what the entire fucking country should do.
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
there's that purity test again.
Yes, you do need to be little more pure than a known sex offender. And if this turns out to be true, that's what he'll be.
Why are you afraid to answer my question? I'll ask again:
What if we find out this accusation is true....and then we also find out all of Trump's 25 accusations are true.
Both are the nominees.
What would you do?
I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing not to vote for someone who
potentially assaults women, 1 or 20 it doesn't matter.
Even if it leads to the total destruction of our democracy?
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
there's that purity test again.
Yes, you do need to be little more pure than a known sex offender. And if this turns out to be true, that's what he'll be.
Why are you afraid to answer my question? I'll ask again:
What if we find out this accusation is true....and then we also find out all of Trump's 25 accusations are true.
Both are the nominees.
What would you do?
I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing not to vote for someone who
potentially assaults women, 1 or 20 it doesn't matter.
Even if it leads to the total destruction of our democracy?
Welp, that's on you guys then!
Only time will tell and nothing is decided yet. Live in the now, all of the what ifs you are fretting about may not happen.
It's basically a guy who can actually do the job, with one accusation verses a guy, who with a second term might very well end the world with twenty times as many accusations.
It's not even a question in my mind .
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?
I mean there really is no way of knowing for sure either way. But it's like Al Franken verse Bill Cosby to some extent here....one is clearly worse than the other in my mind.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
Yeah but what if we find out Trump's 20+ accusations are true though? To make it fair, what would you do in that situation?
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
there's that purity test again.
Yes, you do need to be little more pure than a known sex offender. And if this turns out to be true, that's what he'll be.
Why are you afraid to answer my question? I'll ask again:
What if we find out this accusation is true....and then we also find out all of Trump's 25 accusations are true.
Both are the nominees.
What would you do?
I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing not to vote for someone who
potentially assaults women, 1 or 20 it doesn't matter.
Even if it leads to the total destruction of our democracy?
Welp, that's on you guys then!
That's just shitty. Why can't we as a country renounce them both if that's the case? My god we're a pathetic bunch if that's the option we leave for this country.
Comments
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if we FIND OUT THAT THIS IS TRUE then I won't be voting for Biden. Full stop.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I am inclined to believe victims who come forward and in that same breath we also know that an extreme action like the one Biden is being accused of is usually not just a one-off incident. There should be plenty of other red flags of aggressive physical contact and behavior (go ahead and cue the shoulder rubs and hair sniffing - those aren't on the same level). Just look at any other high profile individual who has allegations made against them. There are several private accusations and public instances that corroborate their pattern of physically aggressive behavior.
Anyway, if this is somehow proven to be true, Biden would need to do a lot to keep my vote and should probably withdraw. It's not a purity test, it's just the right thing to do. We already have a sexual predator in the office who has bought his way out of everything, no way should we ever be promoting a legally proven sexual predator no matter how many years ago it happened.
In an ideal world, Trump and Biden supporters would learn to abandon their candidate and seek a 3rd party or replacement to the establishment's choice, but we know all that will get us is an asshole republican every time.
but don't vote for biden or the democrats.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
We're talking about a he said/she said from 30 years ago (and in Trump's case within the last 10-15 years). We will never know for sure either way.
https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12#karena-virginia-9
The 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Edit: especially during a pandemic
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"Yeah but Trump" is not going to work here. If we find out that Biden did this, he should not be the nominee. None of us should have to vote for him to defeat Trump.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Nor does it rely on logic very often.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
- The federal government has performed horribly managing public health here
- Private insurance companies are covering COVID 100% while Medicare is still requiring beneficiaries to pay applicable deductibles and coinsurance for treatment
- It is not cheaper than private. Studies that show that make multiple assumptions that range from challenging to crazy.
- VT and CA explored implementing it and couldn't overcome the cost hurdle
- M4A polls favorably as long as it's optional. If it's replacing private insurance, people line up against it hard.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You are making an assumption that we find out Biden's accusation is true. How is not reasonable to then ask the same question about Trump's 25 accusations?
But never, ever, ever to pre-Reagan levels.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
What if we find out this accusation is true....and then we also find out all of Trump's 25 accusations are true.
Both are the nominees.
What would you do?
Welp, that's on you guys then!