Nolte: 16 Reasons Why I Believe Joe Biden Sexually Assaulted Tara Reade [merged threads]

[laylalex 7,300]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Staying on topic is very important to you. I support you in that. Women should be supported. 

 

Its like bad grammar to me. Just cant tolerance it

I think whatever sex or gender we are, we should support staying on topic, if only to avoid heavy-handed censorship.  

 

I still haven't settled on whether I believe the story she's telling, or at least this iteration of it. And I get it -- believe me, I get it -- that she may have been fearful or hesitant to share all the details at the beginning, so that earlier versions don't have the same detail as now. I have to actively fight benchmarking her inconsistencies over time against my consistency in telling my own story. But there are still details of my story I've never spoken of to anyone -- if I were to bring my own story to light now, would people say oh, she never said THAT before, so she must be lying, and so the entire story's a lie. But that's my story, not hers. 

 

What makes me more worried is her saying I made a report, but the report doesn't say what I'm saying now. There are so very many inconsistencies that I wonder when I will think that she's cried wolf too many times.

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

12 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

The strategy of using the correct definition of words and science?

 

Either way, she cancelled her interview on Fox, any idea why?

There's no basis in science for any of it, intersectionality is a social movement turned political movement. 

 

And I have no idea why the interview was cancelled, never knew she had one, but I can see why giving an interview to FOX is forbidden. I'd love to see Tucker interview her. He'd not only give her a fair shake but also be critical of her and demand she prove her case. 

[sl1pstream 551]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

There's no basis in science for any of it, intersectionality is a social movement turned political movement. 

 

And I have no idea why the interview was cancelled, never knew she had one, but I can see why giving an interview to FOX is forbidden. I'd love to see Tucker interview her. He'd not only give her a fair shake but also be critical of her and demand she prove her case. 

How would it be forbidden? She's already accused him. 

 

And again, you're completely ignoring actual definitions of words.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I think whatever sex or gender we are, we should support staying on topic, if only to avoid heavy-handed censorship.  

 

I still haven't settled on whether I believe the story she's telling, or at least this iteration of it. And I get it -- believe me, I get it -- that she may have been fearful or hesitant to share all the details at the beginning, so that earlier versions don't have the same detail as now. I have to actively fight benchmarking her inconsistencies over time against my consistency in telling my own story. But there are still details of my story I've never spoken of to anyone -- if I were to bring my own story to light now, would people say oh, she never said THAT before, so she must be lying, and so the entire story's a lie. But that's my story, not hers. 

 

What makes me more worried is her saying I made a report, but the report doesn't say what I'm saying now. There are so very many inconsistencies that I wonder when I will think that she's cried wolf too many times.

 

You know have your own CHEST schtick.  Congrats 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

10 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

How would it be forbidden? She's already accused him. 

 

And again, you're completely ignoring actual definitions of words.

She's interviewing with Biden? Or she accused Tucker/FOX of sexually assaulting her?

 

What you claim the definition of words are, are irrelevant when the usage of them dictates. But like I said, I understand the strategy.

 

Also, relevant:

 

 

Who's making death threats to her, I wonder. 

 

Also interesting how people in every outlet have their own usage for "her story". 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,300]

8 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You know have your own CHEST schtick.  Congrats 

I do? I guess I might be eligible for platinum membership after all then!

[sl1pstream 551]

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

She's interviewing with Biden? Or she accused Tucker/FOX of sexually assaulting her?

Eh, you said forbidden. That's conspiracy theory territory. Death threats don't surprise me, as much as it sucks.

 

And she accused Biden, obviously. As if it wasn't clear what I meant.

 

And like I've said before, Biden shouldn't be the nominee. As much as people whine about the two parties being the same, I don't think having an alleged rapist as your presidential candidate should be a thing that democrats should share with republicans.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

28 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Eh, you said forbidden. That's conspiracy theory territory. Death threats don't surprise me, as much as it sucks.

 

And she accused Biden, obviously. As if it wasn't clear what I meant.

 

And like I've said before, Biden shouldn't be the nominee. As much as people whine about the two parties being the same, I don't think having an alleged rapist as your presidential candidate should be a thing that democrats should share with republicans.

Conspiracy territory? Nah. The comments from leftists across social media, lefty pundit sites, and so on, when fellow lefties like Glenn Greenwald post their FOX interview tells me exactly how forbidden it is. I don't need others to explain theories when I can observe actions myself and make conclusions. That's where no amount of lefty gaslighting will have an effect.

 

Also, I don't mind having an alleged rapist as "my" presidential candidate, because no one is a rapist until they're guilty and proven to be, beyond reasonable doubt. As an independent, I've never let parties try and define voting for me, nor the rabid party fanatics, so I'm not about to let random internet pixels do it either. I didn't vote for Trump in 16 but he won me over with success in his America First policies. I'm not voting for a persona or a TV character, though admittedly it can be funny, all I care about is that he gets things done and stands up for the US which has been greatly absent for the last several Presidencies. The rest of this stuff is just noise.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[sl1pstream 551]

18 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Conspiracy territory? Nah. The comments from leftists across social media, lefty pundit sites, and so on, when fellow lefties like Glenn Greenwald post their FOX interview tells me exactly how forbidden it is. I don't need others to explain theories when I can observe actions myself and make conclusions. That's where no amount of lefty gaslighting will have an effect.

 

Also, I don't mind having an alleged rapist as "my" presidential candidate, because no one is a rapist until they're guilty and proven to be, beyond reasonable doubt. As an independent, I've never let parties try and define voting for me, nor the rabid party fanatics, so I'm not about to let random internet pixels do it either. I didn't vote for Trump in 16 but he won me over with success in his America First policies. I'm not voting for a persona or a TV character, though admittedly it can be funny, all I care about is that he gets things done and stands up for the US which has been greatly absent for the last several Presidencies. The rest of this stuff is just noise.

Again, not leftists, leftists are the people who've dropped Bernie for endorsing Biden.

 

It's also pretty hypocritical to be all over this while also supporting Trump, but I guess I shouldn't have expected better in the first place. No one's a rapist until they're guilty and proven to be doesn't apply here but does to Trump because why?

 

That's also not what gaslighting means. Do you actually look up the definition of words before you use them?

Edited May 4, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Ban Hammer 13,551]

53 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I do? I guess I might be eligible for platinum membership after all then!

[Boiler 46,116]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/us/politics/tara-reade-joe-biden-metoo.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

Sorry behind a pay wall but you get several articles for free.

 

He may not have been their first choice.

They might have endorsed Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. They remembered, all too well, how he treated Anita Hill. They didn’t love what he called his “tactile” political style — the hugging, the touching — or that he seemed to laugh it off when confronted about it.

 

But he had championed the Violence Against Women Act. He had made progress on fighting campus sexual assault.

 

And — most importantly — he seemed to be the best bet to beat Donald Trump in November.

So, one by one, Democratic and progressive women diligently threw their weight behind Joseph R. Biden Jr. for president.

 

Then, with Mr. Biden the all-but-certain Democratic nominee, came Tara Reade. A former employee who had worked in Mr. Biden’s Senate office, Ms. Reade gave a podcast interview in late March, accusing him of sexually assaulting her in a Senate hallway in 1993.

 

On Friday, Mr. Biden, the former vice president, directly addressed the matter for the first time, forcefully denying that the incident took place. He did so in a conversation with Mika Brzezinski on the MSNBC show “Morning Joe,” though Ms. Brzezinski’s husband and co-host, Joe Scarborough, would sit this one out until the discussion moved on from Ms. Reade to the other news of the day. “It’s just going to be you and me,” Ms. Brzezinski told Mr. Biden.

 

It was 17 minutes of a cable television interview, and it was also a microcosm for the way this saga has played out: Women have been expected to discuss the allegation against Mr. Biden. Their male colleagues have not.

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisabloom/status/1256327017911382018 

 

Quote

I believe you, Tara Reade. You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago. We know he is "handsy" . You're not asking for $. You've obviously struggled mightily with this. I still have to fight Trump, so I will still support Joe. But I believe you. And I'm sorry.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[Ban Hammer 13,551]

34 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisabloom/status/1256327017911382018 

 

the comments are amazing

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

35 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisabloom/status/1256327017911382018 

 

A pioneer for sex assault!

 

Here's her standard for Kavanaugh:

 

 

The evidence of alcohol consumption is now corroborative proof of rape! Kavanaugh must withdraw!...

 

 

Just a casual assaulter, Kavanaugh is, why? Because Ford just couldn't forget that night! She also knows how Kavanaugh thinks. You're done, Brett!

 

 

Anyone who votes for Kavanaugh is complicit! But I'll vote for Biden and support him because not complicit.

 

 

Ford is clearly telling the truth because look at what these Republican women said!

 

And this is an attorney who specializes in sexual assault, who defended Harvey Weinstein:

 

 

No question that whatever initial (and I can't stress "initial" enough) good intent the MeToo movement had, it was hijacked in lightning speed by malicious people looking to weaponize this against political opponents. 

 

Hence why they can sit there and dress up no evidence as corroboration and things they know make zero sense as evidence of someone's guilt. A gaslighting norm for deranged piles of garbage.

 

 

[Boiler 46,116]

I remember the discussions on here back in the day when MeToo was getting going, you could see it being weaponised and it did seem that there was a certain faction that thought it was something they could control. But life is not like that.

 

I can see the problem, how does a legal system which requires as a norm beyond reasonable doubt respond to a situation where it seems very rare for that to be the case. So the Law can not reasonable respond and you end up with a media farce.

 

People search for clear solutions and life is messy.