The Saga Continues, Those Who Demand That Women Who Have Been Sexually Assaulted Should be Heard are Amazingly Silent

What is it about politics? Why is the topic so compulsive?
 
Hillary said you should always believe the woman, unless it was those who accused her husband, or the one who accused her staffer that she quietly kept on her team. But I can't hear her saying, "Time to take Biden down!" She is silent!
 
The main differences between Kavanaugh's accuser and Biden's accuser are;

Kavanaugh's accuser is polar opposite politically speaking, with an Ax to grind.
Biden's accuser is politically aligned, a staffer without an Ax to grind. Which lends credence to her claim.
 
Interesting point. You do also know that Kavanaugh's accusers lawyer stated that part of the reason that motivated Christine Ford to make the accusation was to avoid any changes to Roe vs Wayde abortion law?

 
Last edited:
Oops! Better edi, and put my glasses ont!! :ROFLMAO:
 
Is this the end for Biden? Now we have 4 witnesses and the Larry King phone in too. We have her brother, her friend, and now today it seems a work college and neighbour have also corroborated her story. So, I thought I would take a look at fake news CNN and see what they are saying about it. To my astonishment, I could not find one single story on it. I scrolled and scrolled and nothing! This tells me all I need to know about their credibility. If you don't want news, just go there. Then, I read that for the Ms Ford and Kavanaugh fiasco, they had 700 separate stories on it. I am dumbfounded.

Then I just saw a very recent video where Hillary endorses Biden, followed by another video where she says every woman has a right to be believed. Seems she wants to surf two positions at once, shredding her reputation and credibility in the process. Not that she had any left.

The big difference between these two cases is that Ford had zero corroboration and zero witnesses. In fact the witnesses she used have no recollection of her claims. Yet we now have 4 witnesses that support Tara's allegations and the Larry King thing. Given the Democrats propensity to believe the accuser without due process, they are effectively saying they support a rapist. Is that not the case? My understanding is that ra** is defined as any penetration, although I know definitions differ from country to country.

Now just because someone has 4 witnesses and other evidence, it doesn't mean the accused is guilty. But come on, believe flakey Ford who had another agenda, as stated by her own lawyer, who went on anti Trump rallies and had no corroboration, or believe someone with 4 witnesses, is a Democrat and the other evidence? CNN's silence says it all. I am disgusted by it, to be honest.
 
cnn.JPG
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jon
moke123 said:
View attachment 81542
Click to expand...
Sorry but that looks like it is cut and pasted off their webpage, not their nightly hosts. Most people watch "The Most Trusted Name in News" 🤣

Another complaint I have about their .com page, they don't allow for opposing views. What are they afraid of? People might ask about Lemons finger attack?
 
Google site search.

btw, whats your opinion of kavenaughs other accusers from Yale?

If the purpose of this exercise is to try and point out any hypocrisy, could you run down this list too.
list.JPG
 
moke123 said:
Google site search.

btw, whats your opinion of kavenaughs other accusers from Yale?

If the purpose of this exercise is to try and point out any hypocrisy, could you run down this list too.
View attachment 81545
Click to expand...
I don't have one, do you have an opinion on Hillary's glowing endorsement of uncle joe? She has a long record of attacking women who she is not politically aligned with.

But, "we must believe all women", nope just those on the left. See the pattern? Epstein, Bill and Weinstein.
 
When I looked, it was on CNN's YouTube channel. Nothing there at all. Has anyone seen anything on their actual news channel about it? I gather that is where most people go, rather than tucked awayin their online news site, with little coverage. Eventually, they will have to give it airtime, even if its a biased tiny amount considering its severity.

Kavanaugh I remember had several accusers at the time, but their stories fell apart. The problem is, it seems to be a new strategy from the left. Make sexual assault allegations without corroborating evidence as a political strategy towards republicans. But when the shoe is on the other foot, they go quiet.

Regarding Trump, he was a billionaire. Some women view rich targets as a way to solve their finanical problems. The payouts can be enormous. Sadly, it then muddies the water between legitimate claims and those based on financial greed. This type of slander is a repulsive side of human nature. Some are prepared to say anything just to get a big payday. Or, in many cases, a political victory. People don't seem to have any shame over this type of thing anymore. With the Democrats willing to sully the name of someone with an exemplary record in Brett Kavenaugh, they believe someone who has zero proof. They are not interested in the truth, only a supreme court outcome.

I hate to see takedowns based on sexual assault allegations. There was an actor Ken Barlow. He had 4 different people make allegations against him in the UK. All their stories fell apart under scrutiny, and he was found not guilty. We have the previous Scottish SNP leader, Alex Salmond, found not guilty of assaulting 9 women. Evidence of corroboration between some of the women and political motives were present. Have they no shame? I fear the number of claims that are just not legitimate.

Yet what happens to those who ruin peoples lives and reputations with false allegations? Virtually nothing. Just look at the stats on it.

Moke, that is rather a long list there! I would be interested to see how many of those are a) Democrats, b) seeking financial gain.

Like any case of sexual assault, those who are accused should be presumed innocent until due process is completed, and that includes Biden. There is nothing to stop you from having a probabilistic approach on your estimate of someones guilt. For example, I feel there is a reasonable chance that Biden may have done what has been alleged, in particular since he has a history of being a bit hands on. But I also don't think that just because 4 witnesses have come forward, that it is true. They could all be lying.
 
AccessBlaster said:
I don't have one, do you have an opinion on Hillary's glowing endorsement? She has a long record of attacking women who she is not politically aligned with.
Click to expand...
I'm not that much of a Hillary fan. Glad she supports Biden though.
She also attacks men she's not politically aligned with, doesn't she?

AccessBlaster said:
But, "we must believe all women", nope just those on the left. See the pattern? Epstein, Bill and Weinstein.
Click to expand...
Dont you think you take that a little too literally? I'm not part of the MeToo movement. Considering a large part of my business is investigating sexual assaults that would put me out of business.

Jom, I dont watch CNN so couldnt tell you what they've aired.
Jon said:
Kavanaugh I remember had several accusers at the time, but their stories fell apart.
Click to expand...
They accusers from Yale were ignored as the FBI was doing a background check, not an investigation. The scope of an FBI background check is dictated by the whitehouse.

What makes you think that Reades allegations aren't politically motivated?
 
Moke, we are on the same page with Hillary. I didn't know anything about American politics until the last election. I didn't even know what a Democrat or Republican was. She just struck me as criminal. I don't know of other men she has attacked, to be honest.

Yes, I am taking her literally. When she says you must believe all women, do you think she really means, "We shouldn't believe all women"? What else could she mean? Interested in your perspective.

Reades allegations could be politically motivated, although I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they are. The Larry King show suggests something was going on, and she is asking for the records to be released, because she claims she was sacked when trying to make her sexual assault allegations. It could be another Hillary bleachbit email things coming on. She could have been politically motivated back in 1993, who knows.
 
Where is Jim Acosta when we need him? CNN demands answers on an hourly basis from the right, but runs silent on joe.

The longer people are in lock-down, the more hyper-focus they will be on uncle joe. CNN can't bury this forever.
 
I was interested in Andrew Yang, he was a breath of fresh air. I'm on the fence about UBI, but I refer to the rest of him.
 
Jon said:
Is this the end for Biden? Now we have 4 witnesses and the Larry King phone in too. We have her brother, her friend, and now today it seems a work college and neighbour have also corroborated her story. So, I thought I would take a look at fake news CNN and see what they are saying about it. To my astonishment, I could not find one single story on it. I scrolled and scrolled and nothing! This tells me all I need to know about their credibility. If you don't want news, just go there. Then, I read that for the Ms Ford and Kavanaugh fiasco, they had 700 separate stories on it. I am dumbfounded.

Then I just saw a very recent video where Hillary endorses Biden, followed by another video where she says every woman has a right to be believed. Seems she wants to surf two positions at once, shredding her reputation and credibility in the process. Not that she had any left.

The big difference between these two cases is that Ford had zero corroboration and zero witnesses. In fact the witnesses she used have no recollection of her claims. Yet we now have 4 witnesses that support Tara's allegations and the Larry King thing. Given the Democrats propensity to believe the accuser without due process, they are effectively saying they support a rapist. Is that not the case? My understanding is that ra** is defined as any penetration, although I know definitions differ from country to country.

Now just because someone has 4 witnesses and other evidence, it doesn't mean the accused is guilty. But come on, believe flakey Ford who had another agenda, as stated by her own lawyer, who went on anti Trump rallies and had no corroboration, or believe someone with 4 witnesses, is a Democrat and the other evidence? CNN's silence says it all. I am disgusted by it, to be honest.
Click to expand...
Corroborated her story? All they are corroborating is that she told them something too, at the time. Ultimately unless there was an eyewitness, there is zero evidence. Just a woman said something was done to her ... these things will never be solved, there is no evidence. People should be innocent until proven guilty, and treated that way too. It is fine to investigate her claims, but I don't necessarily think that the fact that she told multiple individuals of her frustrations or troubles at the moment, really means much. The only thing that matters is did those things actually occur, and were they without her consent, which is kind of a "only God knows" sort of thing, without eyewitnesses.
 
Jon said:
Yes, I am taking her literally. When she says you must believe all women, do you think she really means, "We shouldn't believe all women"? What else could she mean? Interested in your perspective.
Click to expand...
That all women should be given the opportunity to be heard and that all allegations should be investigated.
Seems pretty ridiculous to think that anyone making any allegation should just be believed period.

Jon said:
Reades allegations could be politically motivated, although I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they are. The Larry King show suggests something was going on, and she is asking for the records to be released, because she claims she was sacked when trying to make her sexual assault allegations. It could be another Hillary bleachbit email things coming on. She could have been politically motivated back in 1993, who knows.
Click to expand...
She never made sexual assault allegations until late march. She previously made "creepy joe" allegations like the other women. She has made several different reasons for leaving her senate job over the years. At the time I believe she made some allegation of being bullied on the job and being sidelined. The Larry king show was a discussion on the cut throat nature of politics in washington not anything to do with harrasment or sexual assault. The mother, if it was her, only alludes to her daughter having a problem.
As far as political motivations I believe she was a bernie supporter and made the allegation on a podcast of another bernie supporter. Bernie was still in the game at the time and behind biden. Who's to say she wasn't trying to derail biden on bernies behalf. Not all bernie bros are male.

One major difference I see in Blasey fords case is she was willing to say so under oath. Reade wont face any type sworn testimony and reportedly didn't name biden in the police report she just filed. She can say anything she wants with no legal repercussions.

Whats with the infatuation with CNN?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve R.
Believe All Women
Replies
1
Views
276
Pat Hartman
P
Jon
I don't blame the Democrats...
2
Replies
28
Views
2,824
FrankRuperto
FrankRuperto
Steve R.
Democrats Depreciating the "Rule of Law"
Replies
9
Views
1,926
The_Doc_Man
The_Doc_Man

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom