Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!
Comments
-
Biden
It should not even be a question to a reasonable person.brianlux said: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.www.myspace.com0 -
Biden
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?www.myspace.com0 -
Biden
i absolutely would as well.The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?
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."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
BidenIf this is true I would be off the Biden train.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
I'm sitting this one outThe Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?gimmesometruth27 said:
i absolutely would as well.The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?
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.
All defensible positions. I was just curious.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.0 -
Biden
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.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.
It's not even a question in my mind .www.myspace.com0 -
I'm sitting this one out
I have not argued against this. In any way. Just to make sure on this forum.brianlux said: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."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Biden
Anyone choosing not to vote for Biden is telling the world they're totally cool with a second term of Trump.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I have not argued against this. In any way. Just to make sure on this forum.brianlux said: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.www.myspace.com0 -
Biden
yes. the choice is trump, or any other capable human being.The Juggler said:
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.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.
It's not even a question in my mind .
if trump wins we deserve to witness the end of the country as we know it.
i am going to do my part to save the country from itself. that is the choice to ponder."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Biden
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.The Juggler said:
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.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.
It's not even a question in my mind .
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?pjl44 said:The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?gimmesometruth27 said:
i absolutely would as well.The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?
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.
All defensible positions. I was just curious.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.0 -
I'm sitting this one out
I'm not voting for Biden either wayCM189191 said:
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?pjl44 said:The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?gimmesometruth27 said:
i absolutely would as well.The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?
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.
All defensible positions. I was just curious.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.0 -
BidenIf.This.Is.True...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.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Biden
no but trump's name is. he is their nominee. that is the low bar we have to leap.JimmyV said:If.This.Is.True...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.
if biden is the nominee and he is guilty, i am still voting for him for no reason other than to vanquish trump and relegate his politics to the shitheap of american history."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?pjl44 said:
I'm not voting for Biden either wayCM189191 said:
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?pjl44 said:The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?gimmesometruth27 said:
i absolutely would as well.The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?
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.
All defensible positions. I was just curious.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.0 -
I'm sitting this one out
I would have voted for Biden roughly 15 to 17 times in November if I was american.The Juggler said:
Anyone choosing not to vote for Biden is telling the world they're totally cool with a second term of Trump.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I have not argued against this. In any way. Just to make sure on this forum.brianlux said: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.
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)Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
BidenIf you don't vote for Biden, you're increasing Trump's chances of securing a second term which would truly be disastrous. I can't imagine why anyone would be OK with that.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
BidenWe are unlikely to ever know for sure either way.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Biden
If you assume this one is true, would you then not have to assume the 20+ Trump accusations are true too?JimmyV said:
If this is true, it's not just an accusation anymore. That's an important point and key to what I'm saying.The Juggler said:
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.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.
It's not even a question in my mind .
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.www.myspace.com0 -
I'm sitting this one out
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.CM189191 said:
What would it take to get you to vote for Biden?pjl44 said:
I'm not voting for Biden either wayCM189191 said:
Would you vote for Biden if it's never proven to be true?pjl44 said:The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?gimmesometruth27 said:
i absolutely would as well.The Juggler said:
I would.pjl44 said:
By calling it a purity test, are you saying you'd still vote for Biden if it turns out to be true?gimmesometruth27 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
1. When have I opposed anything against Julian Assange?Halifax2TheMax said:
Only if you promise to stop posting gifs and referencing that slime ball Aaaaaaahnold?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't see how anything has changed?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because you did for Julian Asstrange who was "credibly" accused of rape. What has changed in the past year for you?Spiritual_Chaos said:
You are still not making sense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Point out anyone saying he (Biden) has been found guilty in court? Was that really too difficult for you to understand?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Not seeing the point you are trying to make.Halifax2TheMax said:
What’s changed? From the Julian Assange thread:Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Her mother said "out of respect for" and not "because she respects him".mrussel1 said:
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 thatSpiritual_Chaos said:
@Halifax2TheMax - you still stand by these posts?
@mrussel1 you still stand by Biden in this and that her accusations could just be about touching her neck?
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.
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?
Why should I point out anyone saying Biden has been found guilty in court?
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.
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.
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?
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.
All defensible positions. I was just curious.JimmyV said:If this is true I would be off the Biden train.
Not proven to be false. Just never proven to be true.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help