╌>

The 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct - Business Insider

  
Via:  Ender  •  4 years ago  •  205 comments

By:   Eliza Relman (Business Insider)

The 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct - Business Insider
Here are all of the allegations of sexual misconduct made against President Donald Trump, nearly all of which he has denied.

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


  • At least 25 women have accused President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct since the 1970s.
  • Renewed attention has been brought to the allegations amid the #MeToo movement and a national conversation concerning sexual misconduct.
  • Trump has repeatedly denied the accusations, denouncing his accusers as "liars."
  • In June 2019, columnist E. Jean Carroll accused President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her by forcing his penis inside her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room the mid-1990s.

As a national conversation on sexual misconduct is gripping the country from Hollywood to Capitol Hill, some renewed attention has been focused on the sexual misconduct allegations that at least 25 women have made against Trump since the 1970s.

A deluge of women made their accusations public following the October 2016 release of the "Access Hollywood" tape, in which Trump was recorded boasting about grabbing women's genitals in 2005. Some others made their stories public months before the tape's release, and still others came forward in the months following.

Trump has broadly dismissed the allegations, which include ogling, harassment, groping, and rape, as "fabricated" and politically motivated accounts pushed by the media and his political opponents. He promised to sue all of his accusers during the 2016 election. In some cases, Trump and his lawyer have suggested that he didn't engage in alleged behavior with certain women because they weren't attractive enough for him to be interested in.

"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," the Republican nominee said during a 2016 rally. "Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

The president said these "false allegations" against him were made by "women who got paid a lot of money to make up stories about me." And then alleged that the "mainstream media" refused to report on evidence that the accusations were made up.

Trump has not yet made good on his promise to sue any of the women — although two women have sued him - and the White House says that Trump's election proves the American people don't consider the allegations disqualifying.

"The people of this country, at a decisive election, supported President Trump, and we feel like these allegations have been answered through that process," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters in December 2017, after several of the president's accusers appeared on national television to rehash their allegations.

But despite Trump's denials, 50% of voters — 59% of women and 41% of men — surveyed in a December 2017 Quinnipiac poll released think the president should resign as a result of the sexual misconduct allegations against him. Several Democratic lawmakers have recently called on Trump to resign over the accusations.

One accuser, Samantha Holvey, who out again last year about her experience with Trump as a Miss USA pageant contestant, said that while his election was painful, she and others see the #MeToo movement as an opportunity to "try round two."

"We're private citizens, and for us to put ourselves out there to try and show America who this man is and especially how he views women, and for them to say 'meh, we don't care' — it hurts," Holvey said on NBC News' "Megyn Kelly Today" in December 2017. "And so now it's just like, all right, let's try round two. The environment's different. Let's try again."

Here are all of the allegations — in chronological order — made by 25 named women:


Jessica Leeds


NBC News

Allegations:

Jessica Leeds told the New York Times in October 2016 that Trump reached his hand up her skirt and groped her while seated next to her on a flight in the late 1970s.

"He was like an octopus. His hands were everywhere," Leeds said, adding that she fled to the back of the plane.

During an interview on NBC News' "Megyn Kelly Today" in December, Leeds added that she was at a gala in New York three years after the incident on the plane when she ran into Trump, who recognized her and called her a c---.

"He called me the worst name ever," she said. "It was shocking. It was like a bucket of cold water being thrown over me."

Trump's response:

Trump denied the allegations and during a rally in October 2016, suggested that Leeds wasn't attractive enough for him to assault.

"People that are willing to say, 'Oh, I was with Donald Trump in 1980, I was sitting with him on an airplane, and he went after me,'" Trump said. "Believe me, she would not be my first choice."

Ivana Trump


Donald Trump and his former wife, Ivana, pose outside the Federal Courthouse after she was sworn in as a United States citizen in May 1988. Reuters

Allegations:

In a 1990 divorce deposition, Trump's first wife and the mother of his three eldest children Ivana Trump accused her then-husband of raping her in a fit of rage in 1989.

Ivana said Trump attacked her after he underwent a painful "scalp reduction" procedure done by a doctor she had recommended, tearing her clothes and yanking out a chunk of her hair.

"Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than 16 months. Ivana is terrified … It is a violent assault," Harry Hurt III, who obtained a copy of the deposition, wrote in a 1993 book about Trump. "According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, 'he raped me.'"

Ivana later slightly altered her allegation, saying that while she felt "violated" on that occasion, she hadn't accused Trump of raping her "in a literal or criminal sense."

"[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage," Ivana wrote in a 1993 statement. "As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."

Ivana is mother to Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump.

Trump's response:

Trump called Hurt's description of Ivana's allegation "obviously false" in 1993, according to Newsday. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, argued in 2015 that his client could not have raped Ivana because "you cannot rape your spouse."

"There's very clear case law," he said.

Cohen later recanted, saying his comment was "inarticulate."

Kristin Anderson


Screenshot/Washington Post

Allegations:

Kristin Anderson, a photographer and former model said Trump reached under her skirt and touched her vagina through her underwear at a New York City nightclub in the early 1990s.

Anderson, then in her early 20s, said she wasn't talking with Trump at the time and didn't realize he was sitting next to her when he groped her without her consent.

"So, the person on my right who, unbeknownst to me at that time was Donald Trump, put their hand up my skirt. He did touch my vagina through my underwear, absolutely. And as I pushed the hand away and I got up and I turned around and I see these eyebrows, very distinct eyebrows, of Donald Trump," she told The Washington Post in October 2016.

Anderson said she and her friends, who were talking together around a table at the time of the incident, were "very grossed out and weirded out," but thought "Okay, Donald is gross. We all know he's gross. Let's just move on."

Trump's response:

"Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity," Hope Hicks, the president's then-spokeswoman and current White House communications director, told the Post in October 2016. "It is totally ridiculous."

Jill Harth


Screenshot/Inside Edition

Allegations:

Jill Harth, a businesswoman who worked with Trump in the 1990s, told the Guardian in July 2016 that Trump pushed her against a wall, put his hand up her skirt, and tried to kiss her at a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort in the early 1990s.

"He was relentless," she told the New York Times. "I didn't know how to handle it. I would go away from him and say I have to go to the restroom. It was the escape route."

Harth sued Trump in 1997 both for sexual harassment and for failing to uphold his end of a business deal with Harth and her then-partner.

Trump's response:

Hicks responded to the Times' reporting, denying Harth's allegations wholesale.

"Mr. Trump denies each and every statement made by Ms. Harth," she said.

Lisa Boyne


Screenshot/Bustle

Allegations:

Lisa Boyne, a health food business entrepreneur, told HuffPost in October 2016 that she attended a 1996 dinner with Trump and modeling agent John Casablancas during which several other women in attendance were forced to walk across a table in order to leave.

As the women walked on the table, Boyne says that Trump looked up their skirts and commented on their underwear and genitals. Trump allegedly asked Boyne for her opinion on which of the women he should sleep with.

Boyne joined Jessica Leeds, Samantha Holvey, Rachel Crooks — three others who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct — in calling on Congress to investigate Trump in December.

Trump's response:

Hicks denied Boyne's allegations. "Mr. Trump never heard of this woman and would never do that," she told HuffPost.

Mariah Billado and Victoria Hughes


Allegations:

Two Miss Teen USA contestants told BuzzFeed News in October 2016 that Trump walked in on them while they were changing in their dressing rooms.

"I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, 'Oh my god, there's a man in here,'" Mariah Billado, who represented Vermont in 1997, told BuzzFeed. Billado added that Trump said something along the lines of, "Don't worry, ladies, I've seen it all before."

Victoria Hughes, a former Miss New Mexico, said Trump first introduced himself to the teenage contestants when he unexpectedly walked into their dressing room.

"It was certainly the most inappropriate time to meet us all for the first time," she told BuzzFeed.

Trump's response:

Trump appeared to admit to this behavior when he boasted in an April 2005 interview with radio host Howard Stern that he regularly walked into contestants' dressing rooms on the beauty pageants he owned while women were unclothed.

"I'll go backstage before a show and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else. And you know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant," he said. "You know they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that."

In October 2016, the Trump campaign called the allegations politically motivated lies.

"These accusations have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present," the campaign said in a statement. "When you see questionable attacks like this magically put out there in the final month of a presidential campaign, you have to ask yourself what the political motivations are and why the media is pushing it."

Temple Taggart


Screenshot/CNN

Allegations:

Temple Taggart, a former Miss Utah, told the New York Times in May 2016 that Trump "kissed me directly on the lips" when she met him at the Miss USA pageant in 1997. Trump did the same thing when Taggart met with him again at Trump Tower in Manhattan after he offered to aid her modeling career, she said.

In November 2017, Taggart spoke out again, telling the Times that the allegations against Trump were "brushed under the rug."

Trump's response:

Trump "emphatically" denies Taggart's claims.

"I don't even know who she is," Trump told NBC News in October 2016. "She claims this took place in a public area. I never kissed her. I emphatically deny this ridiculous claim."

Cathy Heller


Allegations:

Cathy Heller told the Guardian in October 2016 that she was attending a Mother's Day brunch with her husband, children, and in-laws at Mar-a-Lago in the 1990s when Trump approached her table, introduced himself to her, and forcibly kissed her.

"He took my hand, and grabbed me, and went for the lips," she said, and added that she was "angry and shaken" as a result of the incident.

Trump's response:

A Trump campaign spokesman denied Heller's allegation, arguing that it couldn't have happened in public.

"There is no way that something like this would have happened in a public place on Mother's Day at Mr. Trump's resort," Jason Miller said. "It would have been the talk of Palm Beach for the past two decades."

Karena Virginia


Karena Virginia (front) with her lawyer, Gloria Allred. Richard Drew/AP

Allegations:

Karena Virginia, a yoga instructor and life coach, told the Washington Post in October 2016 that Trump groped her as she waited for her car outside the US Open in New York in 1998.

Virginia, then 27, said she overheard Trump talking with a group of men about her legs and that Trump then approached her, grabbed her arm, and touched her breast before asking, "Don't you know who I am?"

Trump's response:

"Give me a break," Trump representative Jessica Ditto said in response to Virginia's allegation. "Voters are tired of these circus like antics and reject these fictional stories and the clear efforts to benefit Hillary Clinton."

Tasha Dixon and Bridget Sullivan


Tasha Dixon. Screenshot/CNN

Allegations:

Two Miss USA contestants said Trump walked into their dressing rooms, where female participants were changing, and ogled them.

Tasha Dixon, a former Miss Arizona who competed in the 2001 Miss USA pageant, told CBS in October 2016 that Trump walked into the contestants' dressing room while they were changing.

"He just came strolling right in," Dixon said. "There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless, other girls were naked."

She added, "To have the owner come waltzing in when we're naked or half naked in a very physically vulnerable position, and then to have the pressure of the people that work for him telling us to go fawn all over him, go walk up to him, talk to him."

Dixon said there was "no one to complain to" because Trump owned the pageant and everyone employed there reported to him.

Bridget Sullivan, Miss New Hampshire in 2000, told BuzzFeed News in May 2016 that Trump walked into the contestants' dressing room unannounced and hugged her inappropriately.

"The time that he walked through the dressing rooms was really shocking. We were all naked," Sullivan said, comparing Trump to a "creepy uncle." "He'd hug you just a little low on your back."

Trump's response:

In October 2016, the Trump campaign denied Dixon's allegations, calling them politically motivated fabrications.

"These accusations have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present," the campaign said in a statement. "When you see questionable attacks like this magically put out there in the final month of a presidential campaign, you have to ask yourself what the political motivations are and why the media is pushing it."

Melinda McGillivray


Wilfredo Lee/AP

Allegations:

Melinda "Mindy" McGillivray told the Palm Beach Post in October 2016 that Trump grabbed her buttocks while they were backstage during a Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-Lago in 2003.

Ken Davidoff, a photographer present at the concert, said McGillivray, then 23, approached him soon after the incident and said, "Donald just grabbed my a--!"

McGillivray spoke out again on "Megyn Kelly Today" in December, calling for a congressional investigation into the accusations of sexual misconduct against Trump.

"He has to face the music; he can't get away with this," McGillivray said. "I want justice."

Trump's response:

The Post reported that Trump did not respond to requests for comment concerning McGillivray's accusation, but the president has broadly denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations made against him.

"The timing and absurdity of these false claims speaks volumes and the publicity tour that has begun only further confirms the political motives behind them," White House press secretary Sanders said after the TV appearance in December.

Natasha Stoynoff


Screenshot/ABC News

Allegations:

People magazine reporter Natasha Stoynoff wrote in an October 2016 column that Trump sexually assaulted her in 2005 at Mar-a-Lago. Stoynoff was visiting Trump and his new wife, Melania, at their Florida estate to report on a story about the couple's first year of marriage.

While a pregnant Melania was changing clothes for a photoshoot, Trump offered to show Stoynoff a "tremendous" room at the resort.

"We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat," Stoynoff wrote.

She added that Trump told her they would have a sexual affair. "Have you ever been to Peter Luger's for steaks? I'll take you. We're going to have an affair, I'm telling you," he allegedly said.

Trump's response:

Trump denied the allegations, tweeting last year, "Why didn't the writer of the twelve year old article in People Magazine mention the 'incident' in her story. Because it did not happen!"

Jennifer Murphy and Juliet Huddy


Jennifer Murphy. Mario Anzuoni/AP

Allegations:

Two women have said Trump kissed them without their consent, but that they weren't offended by it at the time.

Juliet Huddy, a former Fox News anchor, said on the "Mornin!!! With Bill Schulz" podcast in December 2017 that Trump kissed her on the lips without her consent after a meeting in Trump Tower in Manhattan in 2005 or 2006.

"He went to say goodbye and he, rather than kiss me on the cheek, he leaned in on the lips," she said. Huddy added that she was surprised by the kiss, but "didn't feel threatened" or "offended" at the time.

"Now that I've matured, I would've said, 'Nope.' At that time, I was making excuses," she said in December.

Jennifer Murphy, a former contestant both in Miss USA and Trump's reality TV show "The Apprentice," told Grazia magazine in December 2016 that Trump kissed her unexpectedly following a job interview in Trump Tower in 2005.

Although Murphy said she was "very taken aback at the time," she later told CNN that she "wasn't offended" by the kiss. She said she voted for him for president, and even created a Katy Perry parody video in which she sang, "I was kissed by Trump and I liked it."


Jennifer Murphy, former Apprentice star, just did @CNN FOR Trump and admits he kissed her...OOPSIE. #NeverTrumphttps://t.co/d8ZKZc5ofB
— Girls Really Rule. (@girlsreallyrule) October 15, 2016

Trump's response:

The White House denied Huddy's account, according to the New York Daily News.

Rachel Crooks


Monica Schipper/Getty Images

Allegations:

Rachel Crooks told the New York Times in October 2016 that Trump kissed her on the mouth without her consent when she introduced herself him in 2005 Trump Tower in Manhattan, where she worked as a receptionist.

She told the Times that she and Trump shook hands and then he kissed her "directly on the mouth."

Crooks told her sister, who confirmed her account to the Times, but said she thought she would lose her job if she told her company anything about the interaction.

"I was shocked, devastated," she said during a December 2017 interview on "Megyn Kelly Today," adding: "I remember hiding in our boss' office because no one else was there, it was early in the morning, and I called my sister ... I felt horrible."

Crooks joined calls for a congressional investigation into Trump's alleged misconduct.

Trump's response:

Trump denied Crooks' account in an interview with the New York Times in October 2016. "None of this ever took place," he said, threatening to sue the Times if it reported on the allegations.

Samantha Holvey


Monica Schipper/Getty Images

Allegations:

Samantha Holvey, a contestant in the 2006 Miss USA pageant, which Trump owned, told CNN in October 2016 that Trump personally inspected each of the pageant contestants individually.

"He would step in front of each girl and look you over from head to toe like we were just meat, we were just sexual objects, that we were not people," Holvey said, adding that it made her feel "the dirtiest I felt in my entire life."

Then a 20-year-old student at a private Southern Baptist college, Holvey said she "had no desire to win when I understood what it was all about."

Holvey also called for a congressional investigation into Trump's alleged misconduct.

Trump's response:

CNN, who first reported on Holvey's allegations, said Trump did not respond to requests for comment, but the president has broadly denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations made against him.

Ninni Laaksonen


Allegations:

Ninni Laaksonen, a model and former Miss Finland, told Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat in October 2016 that Trump groped her backstage at the "Late Show with David Letterman" in 2006.

"Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt," Laaksonen said. "He really grabbed my butt. I don't think anybody saw it, but I flinched and thought, 'What is happening?'"

Trump's response:

The newspaper did not include a response from Trump, but the president has broadly denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations made against him.

Jessica Drake


Kevork Djansezian/Reuters

Allegations:

At an October 2016 press conference, adult-film actress Jessica Drake accused Trump of grabbing and kissing her without permission and offering her money to accept a private invitation to his penthouse hotel room in Lake Tahoe in 2006.

"This is not acceptable behavior for anyone, much less a presidential candidate," Drake said. "I understand that I may be called a liar or an opportunist, but I will risk that in order to stand in solidarity with women who share similar accounts that span many, many years."

Trump's response:

Trump called Drake's accusations "total fiction" and implied that Drake was accustomed to being "grabbed" because she is a porn actress.

"One said, 'He grabbed me on the arm.' And she's a porn star. You know, this one that came out recently, 'He grabbed me and he grabbed me on the arm.' Oh, I'm sure she's never been grabbed before," he said on WGIR radio.

Summer Zervos


Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images

Allegations:

Summer Zervos, a former contestant on NBC's "The Apprentice," told reporters at an October 2016 press conference that Trump assaulted her during a 2007 meeting at The Beverly Hills Hotel.

"He then grabbed my shoulder and began kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast," she said. "I pulled back and walked to another part of the room. He then walked up, grabbed my hand, and pulled me into the bedroom. I walked out." Zervos added that Trump thrust himself on her before she left the room.

Zervos sued Trump for defamation after he accused her of lying about the allegations. Trump's attorneys have moved to dismiss the case, arguing that, as president, he can't be sued in state court and that his remarks about his accusers are political speech. The suit is ongoing.

Trump's response:

"I vaguely remember Ms. Zervos as one of the many contestants on 'The Apprentice' over the years," Trump said in a statement. "To be clear, I never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago. That is not who I am as a person, and it is not how I've conducted my life. In fact, Ms. Zervos continued to contact me for help, emailing my office on April 14 of this year asking that I visit her restaurant in California."

Cassandra Searles


Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Allegations:

Cassandra Searles, who represented the state of Washington at the 2013 Miss USA pageant, wrote in a June 2016 Facebook post that Trump treated herself and other female Miss USA contestants "like cattle" and had them "lined up so he could get a closer look at his property."

"He probably doesn't want me telling the story about that time he continually grabbed my ass and invited me to his hotel room," she added.

Trump's response:

Trump has not specifically denied Searles' allegations, but he has broadly denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations made against him.

Alva Johnson


Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump holds a campaign rally in Naples, Florida, U.S. October 23, 2016. Thomson Reuters

Allegations:

Alva Johnson, a former Trump campaign staffer, said that Trump kissed her without her consent at a Tampa, Florida rally on August 24, 2016.

Johnson, 43, said Trump grabbed her hand and kissed her on the side of her mouth as he exited an RV outside of the rally, according to details in a new federal lawsuit and an interview with the Washington Post.

"Oh, my God, I think he's going to kiss me," Johnson said in a February 2019 interview with the Post. "He's coming straight for my lips. So I turn my head, and he kisses me right on the corner of my mouth, still holding my hand the entire time. Then he walks on out."

Johnson filed a federal lawsuit against Trump in February.

Trump's response:

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told INSIDER in a statement, "This accusation is absurd on its face. This never happened and is directly contradicted by multiple highly credible eye witness accounts."

E. Jean Carroll


E. Jean Carroll in 2004. Michael Stuparyk/Getty Images

Allegations:

Former Elle advice columnist E. Jean Carroll accused President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her by pinning her against the wall and forcing his penis inside of her in a department store dressing room the mid-1990s.

"The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips," Carroll wrote in an excerpt of her 2019 book,"What Do We Need Men For?".

She went on, "The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I'm not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle."

Trump's response:

The White House denied Carroll's allegations in a statement to New York magazine in June 2019.

"This is a completely false and unrealistic story surfacing 25 years after allegedly taking place and was created simply to make the President look bad," the statement read.

Karen Johnson


President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump, with their son Barron, arrive for a New Year's Eve party at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida in 2017. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Karen Johnson, a regular at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, said Trump pulled her behind a tapestry and kissed and groped her without her consent during a New Year's Eve party there in the early 2000s.

"I'm a tall girl and I had six-inch heels on, and I still remember looking up at him. And he's strong, and he just kissed me," Johnson said. "I was so scared because of who he was ... I don't even know where it came from. I didn't have a say in the matter."

Johnson said Trump forcibly grabbed her genitals.

"When he says that thing, 'Grab them in the pussy,' that hits me hard because when he grabbed me and pulled me into the tapestry, that's where he grabbed me," she said, according to the book excerpt.

Johnson said Trump called her repeatedly after the incident, offering to fly her to New York to visit him. She said she refused his advances and never saw him again or visited Mar-a-Lago, where she'd had her wedding reception years earlier.

Trump's response:

The White House denied the allegation and slammed "All the President's Women."

"That book is trash and those accusations from 20 years ago have been addressed many times," the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, told Insider.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Ender    4 years ago

Funny to me that some would rather ignore all of this.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ender @1    4 years ago

512

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @1.1    4 years ago

Butt, butt, Biden....

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @1    4 years ago
Funny to me that some would rather ignore all of this.

Maybe if you could explain how this relates to the accusations against Biden it might help. I mean, I'm sort of not really getting it. Is your point that Biden is being accused because Trump was? Or, maybe, accusations against Biden don't count until the number of accusations against him match or exceed those against Trump? Maybe that it's okay to have accusations and not care because Trump has accusations and people don't care? Hmm,,, That last one seems to be closest, as far as I can tell. So, is that your point? Because Trump has a bunch of accusations, some of which I assume you think likely true then it's only fair that Biden be given a free pass, whether he's guilty or not? Kinda hard on any potential victims, don't you think? 

Speaking for myself, I don't think it's possible to know the truth of the accusations against Biden so many years after the fact. What upsets me about it all is how the left, after their numerous vicious attacks against opponents on the right for things such as this, completely pretend that somehow the accusations against Biden aren't the same sort of thing. It's Joe Biden. He didn't do it. He even said he didn't do it so it must be true and we can just put it behind us rather than have some congressional dog and pony show for the purpose of smearing the candidate, regardless of any facts, we would insist on if it had been a Republican.  

Of course, people on the left aren't all idiots and they know this, so since it's embarrassing they try to escape the embarrassment by shoving Trump's issues out there in order to distract everyone from the left's hypocrisy. Nice. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2    4 years ago

What bothers me is the sheer, dare I say, hypocrisy. The right wing has been denying these allegations for years. If not completely dismissing them as they were nothing. Standing up for Kavanaugh and calling the allegations false if not out right attacking his accuser.

Now all the sudden the right wing is acting like the allegation against Biden is the absolute truth and are running around saying that if they are not taken seriously then the Dems are full of shit.

How can people defend certain people tooth and nail now all the sudden want to bring out a firing squad for this one allegation.

Just shows me they don't actually care about the allegation only care about taking down an opponent.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @1.2.1    4 years ago
Just shows me they don't actually care about the allegation only care about taking down an opponent.

There it is in a nutshell. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @1.2.1    4 years ago
What bothers me is the sheer, dare I say, hypocrisy. The right wing has been denying these allegations for years. If not completely dismissing them as they were nothing. Standing up for Kavanaugh and calling the allegations false if not out right attacking his accuser.

That should bother you. However, the right's hypocrisy has nothing to do with how the left chooses to behave on this accusation, except as a pretty lame excuse to not hold to their professed values and hold Biden to the same scrutiny you damned well know they hold Republicans to. 

Now all the sudden the right wing is acting like the allegation against Biden is the absolute truth and are running around saying that if they are not taken seriously then the Dems are full of shit.

I think that's an overstatement. I think a lot of  people find the accusation credible, but that isn't the same as thinking he's guilty. But the Dems are full of shit if they don't handle the accusation against Biden as they have proven they would had it been a Republican. 

How can people defend certain people tooth and nail now all the sudden want to bring out a firing squad for this one allegation.

I don't think anyone wants to put Biden against the wall. I think that most people think there is no way to prove the accusation so far after the fact. I think what a lot of people want to do, though, is put a lot of people on the left against the wall because of their hypocrisy in how they have dealt with the accusation against Biden. In short, they aren't dealing with it at all. They're just ignoring it. 

Just shows me they don't actually care about the allegation only care about taking down an opponent.

Undoubtedly, there is some truth to that. Politicians on both sides are generally slime, in my opinion, especially the more powerful they are. However, a lot of us are simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Dems in dealing with the issue and aren't really concerned with Biden at all. I think most recognize that there's no way to prove something like this beyond a reasonable doubt. Not so in proving the Dem's hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2    4 years ago
so since it's embarrassing they try to escape the embarrassment by shoving Trump's issues out there in order to distract everyone from the left's hypocrisy. 

Why do you care?   I don't know whether Biden did it or not.  I don't know Biden's inner impulses, maybe he is a perv. What I do know is that this is an absurd issue to talk about on Newstalkers every day. 

Arent you the one who has been whining at me from time to time because I talk about Trump so much in negative ways? 

Do you know how many people have talked negative about Trump every day since 2016? Millions of people. You know why? Because there is goddamn good reason to. 

Now we are being given the truly mind blowing display of people who blinked not an eye when example after example of Trump's utter immorality has been paraded before us for years, getting all worked up about Joe Biden.  You already sailed that ship when you accepted Trump as a national leadership figure.  Biden is a follower , not a leader, in bad behavior (if the accusations are true). 

You want to talk about hypocrisy? Start with every "Christian" who voted for Trump because he is a "man of God" or is "doing Gods work". Thats hilarious. Trump is the most unChristian president we have ever seen. 

Trump supporters want to either force Biden out of the race, or make him "damaged goods". How can Biden ever be "damaged goods" compared to Trump, a KNOWN habitual liar, crook, bigot, moron, and cheat? KNOWN. 

It is a peak of dishonesty to try and down Biden with these charges by people who gave Trump a pass , and continue to do so. 

I am seeing pages after pages here on NT of all this handwringing about Biden. From a political standpoint, this is a good time for Jesus own words 

Matthew 7:4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take ...

Matthew 7:3 Why do you look at the speck in your brother's  eye , but fail to notice the beam in your own  eye ? Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own  eye , and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's  eye .

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.2.1    4 years ago

What bothers me is the sheer, dare I say, hypocrisy

well,  we are laughing at your hypocrisy.  Your hypocrisy should bother you.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.7  seeder  Ender  replied to    4 years ago

And what evidence is there against Biden? A neighbor from 30 years ago?

Why absolutely dismiss Kavanaugh's accuser yet completely believe Biden's.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    4 years ago

How so Sean? You mean Biden has to be guilty because this is the desired outcome? Is this a fait accompli? Funny I thought this was America where you are innocent until proven guilty. Is it not? Didn't you say that in defense of Kavanaugh? Didn't I agree?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.9  seeder  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.4    4 years ago

So if it is not handled in a way that the right deems acceptable it is full of shit?

What I am gathering is the right would rather have him step down. Therein lies the hypocrisy. How can the right demand something be done when you even admit there is nothing that really can be done.

You think the left should have an all out assault on him and take him down, when the right would never do the same to one of their own.

And believe me, no one is sweeping it under the rug and this will be used until after the election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    4 years ago

Kayleigh McEnany  , the latest Trump explainer to be foisted on an unsuspecting nation at the White House press podium, said one of the dumbest, yet annoying, things she possibly could on her first day giving a press briefing. 

One of the reporters asked her a question similar to what we see discussed here, the question was why are Republicans getting all worked up about Biden's accuser and her charges, when they didnt care at all about the 20 or so women who have come forward over the past half a dozen years or so to make very similar accusations about Trump. 

McEnany answered this by saying that Trump won the election, therefore the issue of him molesting women (or not) has been decided by the voters, and decided in his favor. Because he won. Yes , that is what she said. 

So if Biden wins the election, it will mean he did nothing to wrong to Tara Reade or anyone else. 

Since that is the case, in Trumpworld, isnt it then fair that no one mention these things until after the election? 

Idiots (or liars) like Kayleigh McEnany are paid with taxpayer money. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    4 years ago

Wally,

Kavanaugh's accusers, especially Ford, had zero credible evidence, and nary a bit of corroboration supporting their fake testimony

And how is that any different from what is being done to Biden? Don't you see the irony?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.12  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @1.2.9    4 years ago
So if it is not handled in a way that the right deems acceptable it is full of shit?

No, not at all. It's full of shit if the Dems don't apply the same standards to their own that they do Republicans. This isn't about Biden. This is about Dems as a whole. We're supposed to believe that the way they went after Kavanaugh was a values based event and not cynical opportunism. Well, they could have proven they were values based had they treated the credible accusations against Biden in the same way they did Kavanaugh. They could have given the accuser her say in the same dog and pony show they did for Kavanaugh. Nope. Instead, in something like 24 interviews, he wasn't even asked a single question about it, reportedly. 

You think the left should have an all out assault on him and take him down, when the right would never do the same to one of their own.

One, it doesn't matter what the right would or wouldn't have done. Dems like to think they're some sort of different animal than Republicans, but this shows they are exactly the same. Two, I don't Dems should have "assaulted" Biden. If they really stood for what they say they do, they would certainly have treated this whole affair differently. Instead, they show that they don't give a crap about things like sexual assault except as a weapon to take down those whom they oppose. 

I think you understand what I'm talking about. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.8    4 years ago
Is this a fait accompli? 

Well, yeah. That's how Joe Biden, the Democratic Party and many posters on this site judged  Kavanaugh.   Biden's own line of attack against Kavanaugh was if someone is willing to go public and faces the media  scrutiny to claim  a public official assaulted her we have to believe the essence of the complaint, no matter what  inconsistencies exist  in the story.  Apply Biden's standard to judge Republicans  to Biden and  Biden's a rapist. 

   Due process, evidence and even common sense didn't matter at all to the media and Democratic Party just 18 months ago.   So those Democrats who still want him to be named  their nominee have no problem supporting a rapist, under their own standards. That's  just taking them at their word. 

Otherwise, Joe Biden is like the closeted homosexual televangelist who promotes the death penalty for homosexuals and then decides tolerance is the better route once he gets caught in a Motel 6 with meth and a male prostitute.  Republicans are pointing out that if Democrats and Biden applied the standards they used to judge others, he's guilty. Evidence doesn't matter when  Biden and others try to destroy their opponents.

I have no idea if Biden raped Reade.   I'm not going to vote for him even if he's somehow 100% exonerated. It's not about proving Biden's a rapist, its about showing what a massive hypocrite he, the media and the Kavanaugh witch hunters are.  They had no problem calling Kavanaugh a rapist and trying to ruin his life based on an allegation that was thinner than Reade's story.  Why are you okay with Biden holding others to a different standard than he wants himself to be judged by?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.14  seeder  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.12    4 years ago

When has either party treated the other side the same? What do you think they should do? He doesn't currently hold any office.

Hell, one would think the right would be happy because I think the metoo movement has been dying a slow death for a while.

Don't get me wrong, I think in the beginning it had a righteous purpose, but like everything it can be co opted and corrupted and lose any relevance.

I think it took itself too far, especially when Franken resigned from pressure just because of a pic he took during his days on the comedy circuit.

I think people are getting weary of continuous allegations that only seem to come forward for political expediency.

For the record, I went after trump for these things because a lot of this about him was known or ongoing even before he decided to run for office. The accusations have been ongoing by various people for years. It was well known for a decade or more.

I think Kavanaugh was more or less ambushed and yes it was all political against him and he fought against it. Things only seemed to come to light as a last ditch effort to stop his nomination. I went after him because I always thought he was unfit for the bench from the beginning. I never really said much of anything about the allegations. I wonder why they didn't come forward when he was on the court of appeals. I made fun of him for his beer chugging frat days and yes, we all have an idea about what goes on in frat houses. Hell one frat house in one of our state colleges here had a reputation for putting roofies in girls drinks.

If Kavanaugh was allowed to fight against the allegations why does the right not give Biden the same courtesy? Why does the right automatically assume he is guilty and think he should be thrown under the bus right before an election?

Again this is only holding one side to a standard. You are basically saying that if the left goes after one person, they must go after all. Meanwhile, the right never acts on things like this, so they never have to. How does that make any sense? Why cannot these things be taken on a case by case basis?

It is all a stupid dangerous political road that has the potential to coddle false accusations while at the same time diminishing any true ones. It is all political football that Imo is taking away any voice a true victim may have by making a cynical public.

Ps. Thanks for a decent conversation. Seems to be hard to come by lately.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.13    4 years ago

First of all, I never supported going after Kavanaugh, and I won't defend Biden for saying what he said. But that being said, what you seem to be saying is that two wrongs make a right, but that doesn't float with me. Furthermore, Kavanaugh was questioned but not put on trial. That was part of the due process of becoming a justice. 

And the Republicans are just as guilty of going after people they don't want. What happened to Bill Clinton and Whitewater was nothing more than a wich hunt. He was hunted down from almost day one and when Whitewater didn't work out, they went after him with something that they knew they could catch him on. So your party is not so lilly white either. Talk about a party trying to destroy an opponent. 

I have no idea if Biden raped Reade.   I'm not going to vote for him even if he's somehow 100% exonerated. It's not about proving Biden's a rapist, its about showing what a massive hypocrite he, the media and the Kavanaugh witch hunters are.

And as I said the Republicans are just as hypocritical. What they did to Clinton was utter BS and cost $80 million tax payers dollars. 

Why are you okay with Biden holding others to a different standard than he wants himself to be judged by?

I think that Biden was wrong but as I just pointed out, this is all partisan BS. Both parties are guilty of it. The only thing that is different is that this is recent news. 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
1.2.16  MonsterMash  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.2    4 years ago
Just shows me they don't actually care about the allegation only care about taking down an opponent.
There it is in a nutshell

That was it in a nutshell with Kavanaugh also.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.15    4 years ago
ll, I never supported going after Kavanaugh

I am glad you say that now, but you didn't have a problem when this site was filled with people calling Kavanaugh a rapist. And you don't have a problem with those who did that now discovering due process and the unfairness of trying to defend against allegations from 30 years ago.

But this really isn't about you. This is about the standards Joe Biden, the media and progressives used to judge Kavanaugh and showing what massive hypocrites they are. 

e, Kavanaugh was questioned but not put on trial

Ha!. Doees that somehow make it okay?  Has Biden been put on trial? He's barely even been questioned! 23 interviews since the allegation was made public and his friends in the media didn't ask a single question. Compare that to how the Kavnaugh frenzy exploded. 

 was part of the due process of becoming a justice. 

So now you want to try to  jusitify the Kavanaugh witchhunt?  Biden is accused of raping a woman as Senator. Kavanaugh allegedly pinned a girl down at a high school party. Are you claiming the allegations against Kavanaugh are relevant and Biden's aren't?   I guess declaring Biden a rapist is just "due process" of becoming a President.  If Kavnaugh's treatment was "due process" than you have no rational basis to complain about anything that's happened to Biden, who's been treated with kid gloves by Republicans and the media. 

t you seem to be saying is that two wrongs make a right, but that doesn't float with me

So in your world, it's just as wrong to point out the hypocrisy of the closeted gay who calls for the death penalty for homosexuals as it is to call for the closeted gay to call for the  the death of homosexuals? Pointing out Biden's incredible hypocrisy and pointing out the standards he's perfectly happy to use to try and destroy others is not a "wrong" in my book.  I guess I'm one of those people who think you leading a witchhunt is wrong. You  seem to think criticizing someone for leading a witchhunt is as bad as  leading a witchhunt. 

What they did to Clinton was utter BS and cost $80 million tax payers dollars

Please. Clinton perjured himself under oath.  So now felonies by President are okay too?   Are Republicans ever allowed to criticize Democrats for commiting crimes?  

The only thing that is different is that this is recent news. 

Are you kidding me? Do you not remember what happened with Kavanaugh? This is nothing like what happened to Kavanaugh, where Biden, the entire DEmocratic PArty and the MSM immediately went after Kavanaugh and turned Blasey Ford into some sort of modern saint, who could not tell a lie. (and if she did, it just proved she's telling the truth).   In the six weeks since the allegation was made, Republicans have simply pointed out Biden's hypocrisy and asked for an investigation, while the MSM ignored the story.

23 times the MSM interviewed Biden without even asking about Reade and you think it the  same as the frenzy that surrounded Kavanaugh? That's perposterous.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2.18  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.17    4 years ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.19  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @1.2.14    4 years ago
I think it took itself too far, especially when Franken resigned from pressure just because of a pic he took during his days on the comedy circuit.

The metoo movement had potential but also a lot of risk. The risk was that it was too prone to be used as a tool to go after enemies. It also had the potential, and I think, effect of getting a lot of male assholes to realize certain things weren't going to fly as much anymore. 

For the record, I went after trump for these things because a lot of this about him was known or ongoing even before he decided to run for office. The accusations have been ongoing by various people for years. It was well known for a decade or more

For the record, I didn't vote for Trump. He does a lot of things I agree with, some I don't, but I've never liked him as a person. I find his morals appalling. I'm pushing this issue because I think I'm a fairly moral guy and it pisses me off when a party tries to pass themselves off as the defenders of values but drops them when it becomes inconvenient, as I think is obvious concerning the accusations against Biden and the Dem's handling of them. No honest person would agree that had some Republican been accused of this while trying for some position the Dem's would have come down on them like a ton of bricks, because they always do. 

I think Kavanaugh was more or less ambushed and yes it was all political against him and he fought against it. Things only seemed to come to light as a last ditch effort to stop his nomination. I went after him because I always thought he was unfit for the bench from the beginning. I never really said much of anything about the allegations. I wonder why they didn't come forward when he was on the court of appeals. I made fun of him for his beer chugging frat days and yes, we all have an idea about what goes on in frat houses. Hell one frat house in one of our state colleges here had a reputation for putting roofies in girls drinks.

I think this is a reasonable assessment and I'm glad you have no issues with stating your honest opinion about it. At the time of the hearings, I had no idea whether Kavanaugh was an asshole or not but I was completely pissed off at the travesty of the hearings. There was no due process. There was no actual evidence. There was just a kangaroo court of public opinion. I would be equally incensed if the same thing happened to Biden over the current accusation against him. While the accusation is credible, that is, plausible, there's no real evidence that has been brought forward. It's a classic "he said, she said". 

To be clear, I don't want what happened to Kavanaugh to happen to Biden. What I want is recognition of the fact that the Dems have a standard for their opponents and a different standard for their friends. If the Dems think it wouldn't be fair to treat Biden that way, then it wasn't fair to treat Kavanaugh that way, especially since the accusations are exactly the same sort of accusation. 

If Kavanaugh was allowed to fight against the allegations why does the right not give Biden the same courtesy? Why does the right automatically assume he is guilty and think he should be thrown under the bus right before an election?

Perhaps I'm not reading the same news story that you are but it seems to me that the right isn't doing any such thing. Rather, they seem to be pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in that the left isn't treating the accusation the same, even though they are the same. I haven't heard of any republicans trying to get a congressional hearing on the issue. Not so far, anyway, but perhaps I haven't read the right story yet. 

Again this is only holding one side to a standard. You are basically saying that if the left goes after one person, they must go after all. Meanwhile, the right never acts on things like this, so they never have to. How does that make any sense? Why cannot these things be taken on a case by case basis?

I'm not sure this is about holding only one side to a standard. It isn't for me, anyway. It's about pointing out that one side, the Dems, do not apply their demonstrated standards to themselves when it doesn't suit them. And even when they sort of do, like Franken, it seemed less about what was right and more about image. I would never have pushed for Franken to step down after he apologized for an action in his past that was, stupid as it may have been, not really that big a deal unless he refused to apologized. If only perfect people are allowed to govern, there'd be no government. 

But if a side, either left or right claims a standard, then, yes, I damned well expect them to abide by it, even when it hurts. I'm expected to, so why shouldn't I expect them to? Maybe we have the clown show of a government we do because none of it has any actual values they stand by? And we let them get away with it. We have the government we put there. 

It is all a stupid dangerous political road that has the potential to coddle false accusations while at the same time diminishing any true ones. It is all political football that Imo is taking away any voice a true victim may have by making a cynical public.

On this, we agree. What's more, there isn't any significant difference between Democrats and Republicans. I suspect they are actually working together but even if they aren't, what we are really faced with is which set of rich elites are going to be in control of the rest of us who aren't rich. 

Ps. Thanks for a decent conversation. Seems to be hard to come by lately.

Same to you. I think you understand where I'm coming from, at least, and seem to agree somewhat. My personal opinion is that we can't look to either Dems or Repubs to solve our problems. Right now there are too many in both parties or of those political persuasions who are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. If I could persuade anyone, I'd get them to abandon either party and try to create something like a centrist party. A common sense party, if you would. 

Anyway, been a pleasure. Sorry if I got a little heated. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.2.20  Thomas  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.12    4 years ago

With all due respect, we seem to accept as fact that:

  • All Democrats are the same.
  • All Republicans are the same.
  • All (Insert medium here) are the same. 

"They" are not they. They are we. We are all people who have developed our individual attitudes based on the accumulation of experience. When you succumb to the false dichotomy of "they and us", you have begun the slide into not seeing the world as it presents itself, but as it is presented by others. 

Be aware.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.21  Drakkonis  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.19    4 years ago
To be clear, I don't want what happened to Kavanaugh to happen to Biden. What I want is recognition of the fact that the Dems have a standard for their opponents and a different standard for their friends.

I'd also like to add to this comment that I know the Republicans have done the same thing, although I think they do it to a lesser degree. I don't intend to imply that the Republicans are much better, although I think they are to a degree. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.22  Drakkonis  replied to  Thomas @1.2.20    4 years ago

I am aware, thank you. I understand what you are saying. I know not all in any category are cookie cutter copies of each other. However, there tends to be an overall gestalt that is fairly accurate for describing groups in general. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Thomas @1.2.20    4 years ago

"They' are not they. They are we.

and yes, we are not all the same,

especially when it comes to the political Blame Game.

When a Trump defender claims hippocrazy, i just don't feel they are being honest...

but i'm honest that way, and too many other weird ways to mention, so i do, as l tell others, to Not

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.24  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.17    4 years ago
I am glad you say that now, but you didn't have a problem when this site was filled with people calling Kavanaugh a rapist. And you don't have a problem with those who did that now discovering due process and the unfairness of trying to defend against allegations from 30 years ago.

Wrong. I said clearly on this site, that I didn't think he did it and that it was a terrible precedent to set. But beyond that, I don't tell people what to say. I can only represent myself. 

This is about the standards Joe Biden, the media and progressives used to judge Kavanaugh and showing what massive hypocrites they are. 

Fox is part of the MSM and they have no problem mocking him every chance they can. And while they defended Kavanaugh they are doing a good job of going after Biden. And yes, I do watch Fox. Just pick your poison and that is what most people go with.

 was part of the due process of becoming a justice. 

Holy out of context Sean. Where did you learn that? Fox? This is what I said:

Furthermore,Kavanaugh was questioned but not put on trial. That was part of the due process of becoming a justice. 

And what is up with that 23 number of interviews. Where did that come from? 

So now you want to try to  jusitify the Kavanaugh witchhunt?  Biden is accused of raping a woman as Senator. Kavanaugh allegedly pinned a girl down at a high school party. Are you claiming the allegations against Kavanaugh are relevant and Biden's aren't? 

I'm saying they are both wrong. I think I was pretty clear about that.

 I guess declaring Biden a rapist is just "due process" of becoming a President. 

This is America. We are innocent until proven guilty.  

Pointing out Biden's incredible hypocrisy and pointing out the standards he's perfectly happy to use to try and destroy others is not a "wrong" in my book. 

Is he being treated any differently? Did he not have to answer for this? If there was an interviewing process for the job (thank goodness for Trump there isn't), don't you think Biden would have to go through the process? 

What they did to Clinton was utter BS and cost $80 million tax payers dollars Please. Clinton perjured himself under oath.  So now felonies by President are okay too?   Are Republicans ever allowed to criticize Democrats for commiting crimes?

OK that has to be a joke. Whitewater started by the Republicans the moment he became president in order to get him impeached. And when after over 4 years they got nowhere, they found a girl who he had consensual sexual relations with and caught a married man lying about cheating. I would bet about 15-20% of married men cheat and all of them would have responded the exact same way. He just caught while being the president. That should have been an issue between him and his wife like it had been with all our other cheating presidents. 

First of all what does this mean:

DEmocratic PArty

DEPA?

 In the six weeks since the allegation was made, Republicans have simply pointed out Biden's hypocrisy and asked for an investigation, while the MSM ignored the story.

You have made that claim before and I have seen the return on google from the MSM, and it was covered. 

23 times the MSM interviewed Biden without even asking about Reade and you think it the  same as the frenzy that surrounded Kavanaugh? That's perposterous.

So that 23 came from somewhere. Twice in one comment. Where did you get that number from?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.25  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MonsterMash @1.2.16    4 years ago
That was it in a nutshell with Kavanaugh also.

Yes it was. Again, are we going with two wrongs makes a right defense?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.26  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Thomas @1.2.20    4 years ago

Thomas,

There is just some who think that everyone has "group think". If anything this discussion should have proven that. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.27  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.5    4 years ago
Now we are being given the truly mind blowing display of people who blinked not an eye when example after example of Trump's utter immorality has been paraded before us for years, getting all worked up about Joe Biden.

If you think people are getting worked up about Joe Biden then I don't think you understand what's going on. What people are getting upset about is not Joe Biden, but rather, the left's acceptance of and excuses for Joe Biden which are exactly the same sorts of things that the left castigates the right for. 

You are a perfect example. I doubt there's never been an opportunity to slight Trump that you've let slide. But when the right does the same thing to Biden, you actually have the nerve to say...

What I do know is that this is an absurd issue to talk about on Newstalkers every day. 

You are a perfect example of this hypocrisy. Thanks. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.28  seeder  Ender  replied to  Thomas @1.2.20    4 years ago

The cake is a lie.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.29  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @1.2.28    4 years ago
The cake is a lie.

LOL

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.27    4 years ago
f you think people are getting worked up about Joe Biden then I don't think you understand what's going on. What people are getting upset about is not Joe Biden, but rather, the left's acceptance of and excuses for Joe Biden which are exactly the same sorts of things that the left castigates the right for. 

I'm not going to 'debate' this nonsense with you , or anyone else. It is absurd. In 2016, the "voters" demonstrated that personal behavior of candidates does not matter to the outcome of elections. 

I'm not hypocritical about Biden, I dont give a shit, in terms of the election, whether he did anything to that woman or not, because it does not matter. No one should vote against Biden because of this story. 

You seem highly frustrated that "the left" is not agreeing with you that everyone should be highly concerned about this story. Hell even the moderates and independents dont agree with you.

As far as Trump goes, he's not fit for office, and it has been completely obvious since the day he came down that escalator. It really isnt my problem if other people are blase about it.  

This entire era of trumpism will be seen by history as an aberration. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @1.2.9    4 years ago
You think the left should have an all out assault on him and take him down, when the right would never do the same to one of their own.

And the proof there is that trmp is still occupying the Oval Office even after all the shit that came out during his campaign. They didn't give a shit about their candidate why should we give a shit about ours?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.32  seeder  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.31    4 years ago

That is what gets me. That some think a certain standard must be followed.

That if one person was gone after, all people must be gone after.

Like we can't deem for ourselves what is credible or not.

Like we have to follow some strict guideline.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.2.32    4 years ago

e we have to follow some strict guideline.

You do. If there's a R after their name, attack. If it's  D deny. 

don't pretend its anything else. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.34  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.33    4 years ago

Unlike some, I don't follow any strict party line.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.35  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.31    4 years ago
ey didn't give a shit about their candidate why should we give a shit about ours?

Yes, you've done a great job of proving every Trump defender correct.  They said,  Democrat's don't care about sexual assualt (Kennedy, Clinton etc.) and only care about these because it's a means to get Trump. And sure enough, four years later you proved they were right and dutifully fall in line behind a man accused of rape.  Trump voters knew you were being hypocites when you pretended to care about the allegations and clutched your pearls becuase Trump merely said "grab them by the pussy," becuase now as predicted, you are perfectly happy to fall in line behind a guy who didn't just say it, he's litterally accused of doing it a girl.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.36  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.35    4 years ago

As far as I know, the Clinton affairs were consensual.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.33    4 years ago

If there's a D after their name, attack. If it's an R, deny

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.38  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.35    4 years ago

And none of you said a GODDAMNED word when all the allegations about trmp came out. None of say a GODDAMNED word when any sexual misconduct allegation comes out about a republican.

I own my hypocrisy. What about you, Sean? Do you own yours?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.24    4 years ago
Fox is part of the MSM and they have no problem mocking him every chance they can

Most people don't consider Fox part of the MSM, and I'm baffled why you think their behavior somehow excused the Times etc. from ignoring the story. So the next time Fox is accused of ignoring an anti-Trump story are you going to jump in and say "Fox doesn't, have to cover it, CNN did!"  

I didn't realize Fox is now the gold standard that can cover for the mistakes of the MSM.

oly out of context Sean.

How's it out of context? You jusitiifed Biden (who was not in the Senate) and the media running with the story because it was "due process" (a misue of that word) of becoming a Justice. Why wouldn't that apply to someone trying to become President, the most powerful position in the world. 

And what is up with that 23 number of interviews

That's the number of interviews Biden did between March 25 and his sit down with Joe and Mika the other day, where supposedly objective journalists ignored the allegation. 

his is America. We are innocent until proven guilty.  

Unless you are a Republican. 

s he being treated any differently?

Well, Obviously.  Which Republican has declared him guilty of rape, which Biden claimed Kavanaugh was? Which Republicans are threatenng witnesses to lie on Reade's behalf?  Which networks are pouring through his Biden high school yearbooks claiming their secret rapist codes hidden within?  Is CNN promoting a porn lawyer claiming Biden led rape gangs in high school without any evidence? Seriously, it's mindboggling that any honest person would compare  the desultory, tardy  coverage of Biden's allegation with the absolute frenzy that surrounded Kavanaugh. You are better than that. 

d when after over 4 years they got nowher

This has to  be a joke. Please look up how many convictions were obtained for wrongdoing by Clinton's associates. A sitting Governor, Clinton's pal was convicted!

 caught a married man lying about cheating

He was caught lying under oath and obstructing justice in a sexual harrasment trial. Are you now arguing that those accused of sexually harrasing women should be able to lie under oath and try to get others to lie under oath without penalty.  I think the law should apply to those of accused of sexual harrasment. I don't understand why you think they are above it. Do you think sexual harrasment isn't a real thing?  

But I'm glad you brought up how Republicans and the Press handled Clinton. When Clinton was accused of raping a woman decades earlier, Kenn Starr simply added a small footnote to the Starr Report saying the allegation was unproved and let it go at that. 

If only Democrats and Joe Biden had followed Starr's lead and handled the Kavnaugh allegation with the same circumspection, common sense and respect for due process, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, Biden decided all allegations had to be believed (when leveled against Republicans).

DEPA?

A typo.

ou have made that claim before and I have seen the return on google from the MSM, and it was covered. 

The allegation was made on March 25th. When did the New York Times first mention it? In the time it took CNN to run it's first story on Reade, it ran 700 odd stories on Kavanaugh. Again, I shouldn't even have to wirte this since it only happened 18 months ago, but their is no comparision between the amount of attention and  the tenor of the coverage between the two situations.   I don't think anyone could suggest there was with a straight face. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.40  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.2.34    4 years ago
Unlike some I don't follow any strict party line

Sure. Sure. It's just a coincidence all your posts follow a strict party line/

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.41  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.40    4 years ago

Then you haven't read them all.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.42  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.39    4 years ago
Most people don't consider Fox part of the MSM

The only people that don't are the fox watchers.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.43  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.38    4 years ago

 hypocrisy. What about you, Sean? Do you own yours

If you think I'm being a hypocrite on a subject, point it out. I try not to be, but if you think I am being one on a particular issue, let me know. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.44  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.43    4 years ago

Absolutely  I do. You never say a word about trmp's indiscretions, you took up for Kavanaugh and berated Ford. Here you've already convicted Biden without there being any investigation or even a Congressional hearing.

And as far as republicans can do no wrong and democrats can do no right, that's you, Sean, in a nutshell.

Or do you only see hypocrisy in liberals and democrats?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.44    4 years ago

ere you've already convicted Biden without there being any investigation or even a Congressional hearing

I convicted Biden? To quote myself from above:  "I have no idea if Biden raped Reade."  The same I've said about Trump.  

Try again. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.46  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.45    4 years ago

rigghhttt......

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.47  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.35    4 years ago

Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump roused considerable consternation on social media Sunday after she went all-in on demanding Democrats turn over documents to prove that accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden were false.

“I would think if you were being accused of something and you were totally innocent, you would go to any length possible, Judge, to try and clear your name, including allowing people to open up files like that and make sure you’ve turned over every single leaf to prove your innocence and make sure people understood that these charges were false and that you did nothing wrong,” Eric Trump’s wife told Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro Saturday night.

Trump dragged Democrats for continuing to support the former vice president in his bid for commander-in-chief rather than taking the “believe all women” stance they maintained when      Christine Blasey Ford       claimed Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in college.

Also Read:       Trump Dragged for Latest Anti-Media Rant: Sorry, There Are No 'Noble' Prizes for Journalism

Noting the irony in her request for total transparency — President Trump has refused to release his      tax returns       and dozens of women have accused of      sexual misconduct       — Twitter users piled on her for her hypocritical call to action.

“Thank you, @LaraLeaTrump. Calling for transparency is the right thing to do. I hope your courage to say this leads to @realDonaldTrump finally releasing his taxes after promising to do so FIVE YEARS AGO,” tweeted California congressman and former Democratic presidential candidate      Eric Swalwell   .

“BREAKING NEWS Lara Trump endorses call for @potus to provide DNA in the E. Jean Carroll case because ‘well I would think if you were being accused of something and you were totally innocent, you would go to any length possible to try to clear your name.'”      CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart wrote   .

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.48  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.47    4 years ago

Who is Lara Trump and why is she important?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.49  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.48    4 years ago

trophy wife to the idiot son of trumpski's first marriage...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.50  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @1.2.49    4 years ago

Idiot son...that's Eric, right?

Still...what makes her opinion important enough to be on Judge Jeanne's show? Jeannine needs to ratch up the ratings?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.51  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.50    4 years ago

She's been all over the place in recent months promoting Daddy In Law Dearest.  

Also, don't you love how some folks are scared shitless of Joe Biden's chances? LOVE IT!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.53  igknorantzrulz  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.52    4 years ago

JR what is a hypocrite?

a TRUMPP SUPPORTER

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.54  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.51    4 years ago
She's been all over the place in recent months promoting Daddy In Law Dearest.  

most Trumpp women have been all over the place

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    4 years ago

Anything to take some heat off of Biden, eh?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @2    4 years ago

Anything to ignore the events already in front of us.

I guess it is ok to burst into a teens dressing room at a pageant...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @2.1    4 years ago

If Joe can't stand a little heat, perhaps he isn't suited to be President.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    4 years ago

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    4 years ago
If Joe can't stand a little heat, perhaps he isn't suited to be President.

Please tell, when Trump was made to stand any heat? The only time that I remember was during his divorce proceedings, and back then he only cared because of the settlement. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.3    4 years ago
Please tell, when Trump was made to stand any heat? The only time that I remember was during his divorce proceedings, and back then he only cared because of the settlement. 

Seriously? Where have you been for the last 4 years?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.5  MonsterMash  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.3    4 years ago
Please tell, when Trump was made to stand any heat

Every fucking day

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.2    4 years ago

What's with the eyebrows?  He really thinks he's something.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @2    4 years ago

Anything to take some heat off of Biden, eh?

There was no heat ON him. All fabricated right wing fake news. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 years ago

Okay.

Seems pretty weird to me that a candidate would release any statement regarding something he isn't taking some heat about.

That isn't logical, and as Judge Judy says, "If it doesn't make sense, it is probably a lie".

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 years ago

here was no heat ON him.

I suppose not. Democrats don't care about rape allegations.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.2    4 years ago

Oh please Sean. Not even Trump agrees with this. He spoke out in support of Biden. Why do you think that is?

Sometimes a witch hunt is just that.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.1    4 years ago
Seems pretty weird to me that a candidate would release any statement regarding something he isn't taking some heat about.

So damned if he does and damned if he doesn't? 

Like I said, even Trump is telling Biden to fight this. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    4 years ago

How did he blow the interview? He was honest. You should learn something about how people lie. It's all in the blinks. His were as consistent as hers.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.2.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    4 years ago

What actual stuff do they have? The answer is nothing. They can't even find a complaint. 5 out of 7 people she claims to have worked with don't remember her. 1 does but doesn't want to talk. The other is a neighbor who could be Gladys Kravitz. Was that the exact same thing that happened to Kavanaugh?

So what should they investigate? Believe me, if there is something the right MSM will find it. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.2.9  Thomas  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.8    4 years ago
5 out of 7 people she claims to have worked with don't remember her. 1 does but doesn't want to talk.

And here is the way that will be played: The 1 person who does not want to talk (regardless of the reason that they do not want to talk) will be said to not want to talk because they are partisan, they have the dirt on Biden, they know for a fact that he did commit the alleged acts, and will not divulge it because they are partisan and would put the election of anybody but Donald Trump above the safety and well being of any single person.   I Gar-un-teeyit.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.2.10  Split Personality  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.8    4 years ago

Tara is starting to modify her story since Mr. Biden sent a letter to the Senate requesting herTR's files and any complaints.

Biden accuser Tara Reade 'not sure' what complaint she claims was filed with Senate says

Reade has said that the complaint, if it’s found, would not include the sexual assault allegation that she came forward with in March.
05/02/20

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
PhD Guide
2.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Texan1211 @2    4 years ago

The truth hurts, but, it should not blind one. Loyalty to a lout is similar to the devotion to Hitler demonstrated by the citizen of Germany.800

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    4 years ago

Partisanship is worse than religion when it comes to objectivity.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @3    4 years ago

Very True Tig. 

Here is the thing I don't get. Even if you think that Biden did what this woman says he did, how can you support Trump? He's even worse? Or at least, don't be a hypocrite and jump on Biden. 

I do actually feel that it has become a bit dangerous to be a man these days. It seems that political expedience is to go after them using sex. Kind of the opposite of what the #metoo movement intended since it creates a new victim. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    4 years ago
Here is the thing I don't get. Even if you think that Biden did what this woman says he did, how can you support Trump? He's even worse? Or at least, don't be a hypocrite and jump on Biden. 

I have been asking myself exactly that. One is too many, but if I have to choose between a candidate with one accusation, or one that has 25... I'm going with the candidate that has one. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    4 years ago

Indeed.    Those who feel that these allegations (the last one being substantially different than the preceding ones) cross the line of decency then how could they not find substantially worse fault with Trump?

I understand those who look past Trump's womanizing, etc. because they believe he is otherwise doing a good job (regardless of the truth of that belief).   But if one looks past Trump's sordid past, a consistent, objective method would dismiss these allegations as irrelevant.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.2    4 years ago

And here is the irony about this. Even Trump said this today and gave his support to Biden to fight these charges. That speaks volumes about those who are glomming onto Biden. Even their guy is sympathetic. 

Trump weighed in after Biden’s denial, which marked the Democrat’s first public statement on the matter. “I would just say to Joe Biden, ‘Just go out and fight it,’” Trump said in an interview with conservative radio host Dan Bongino.  
 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.4  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.2    4 years ago
Indeed.    Those who feel that these allegations (the last one being substantially different than the preceding ones) cross the line of decency then how could they not find substantially worse fault with Trump?

Because it  isn't about who's the more acceptable candidate. It is about the Dem's hypocrisy in dealing with the accusation that is the issue. Saying "well, Trump has way more accusations than Biden and has less decency" is a pretty piss poor defense and is just a means to avoid taking the accusation against Biden seriously. Everyone knows damn good and well that if this were about another Trump appointee to the SCOTUS, the Dem's would be creating a congressional investigation faster than the speed of light and doing their damnedest to drag that person down. But, when it comes to their candidate, they pretend to take it seriously but do nothing at all. How many interviews did Biden have since the accusation came out without a single solitary question about it? 24? Are you kidding me? 

Essentially, what the left is doing is denying their supposed values concerning sexual violence on the basis of saying that it doesn't matter because Trump is worse, so that gives Biden a pass. In other words, it's saying it's okay if our guy is a little guilty because your guy is a lot guilty and that means you don't get to say anything about it. That's complete horse crap. You don't get to say our guy gets away with one rape because your guy had five. 

It's easy for the Dems to "stand by their values" when they are using those "values" as a weapon against their opponents. But we see what their real values are when it comes to their own guy accused of the same thing. Pathetic. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.5  Thomas  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.4    4 years ago

Actually, I see it as more of,"Fuck! We have as good as nominated him because we think he is the only one who can beat Chump. Now WTF do we do?" Followed by the intense, frightened stare...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.4    4 years ago

Or a claim that is over 20+years ago that there is virtually no proof of, could be in fact, nothing more than a lie to smear an opponent. But hey, why believe Biden, since it's so convenient not to and as an added bonus get to call all dems hypocrites. 

See, that works out so well for all of those who didn't even question Trump's history. And honestly, at this point, even Trump gets that.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.6    4 years ago

"a lie to smear an opponent."

C'mon now, Trump only plays fairly in elections, and would never LIE, unless sitting up,  in bed. Would never quid pro quid, unless he thought basically black mailin another country's leader was the way to go n get a head

or. letting another of our #1 enemies, Putin him in office, all while LYING non stop, as he CAN"T;

can't lead, can't talk, can't breed a \pedigree, 

but can grab a pedi, and phile it under some other pussy he was 'allowed' to grab, cause 'they just let em...'and N E back he can and will stab, cause again,

sum just let em...

.

There is NOT a comparison 

when you look at the past history of Trump VS Biden

when it comes to each ofv these individuals, one, a campion of

womens' rights,

the other, a poster child, for a casually condessending corrupted CREEPO ,

creatively casting his own shadowy projection on his opponent in the election where his Pol Can N Will Never again Grace any,

with the Erection

, asz his, IS an Infection of a dereliction     of Duty , he refuses

to answer,  as to women, he is no 'Man' sir,   just

America's, worst fckn Cancer !

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.4    4 years ago
Saying "well, Trump has way more accusations than Biden and has less decency" is a pretty piss poor defense and is just a means to avoid taking the accusation against Biden seriously.

You do not see R hypocrisy here as well?  

Point taken on the D hypocrisy, but my point (which you did not address) is that it is illogical (and hypocritical) to hold Biden to a level of moral and ethical behavior while holding Trump to a lower level.  

If the allegations against Biden prove true then that is behavior unbecoming of someone who aspires to the office of PotUS (and I am not forgetting that many PotUS' have been womanizers).   But for someone to (as many do even here on NT) downplay Trump's moral issues and highlight those alleged of Biden is flawed partisan reasoning.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.9  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.6    4 years ago
Or a claim that is over 20+years ago that there is virtually no proof of, could be in fact, nothing more than a lie to smear an opponent. But hey, why believe Biden, since it's so convenient not to and as an added bonus get to call all dems hypocrites. 

Which is exactly what the Republicans were castigated for during the Kavanaugh hearings. You have said exactly the same things here as the Republicans said during the hearings. Exactly the same things. And now Dems are getting exactly what they gave, although to a much lesser degree. 

So, the question I have for you is, why does "it was more than XX years ago", "there's no evidence or proof", " this is just an attempt to smear an opponent" and the rest is perfectly reasonable to you as a defense for Biden but was considered complete hypocritical bullshit when applied to Kavanaugh? The accusations are the same sorts of accusations. Apples to apples. So, again, why are they reasonable for Biden but not Kavanaugh? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.9    4 years ago

You might be surprised by her answer (which will be provable given her comment history).

My opinion, by the way, is that partisan politics is a blood sport; ruthless and utterly dishonest.   The 'end justifies the means' mantra is taken to the extreme.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.11  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.10    4 years ago
You might be surprised by her answer

Maybe, but I doubt it. I've read what she wrote. I know she doesn't agree with what happened to Kavanaugh. My comment wasn't accusing her of holding that opinion herself. I recognized what she was saying as simple common sense concerning roasting Biden over a fire over the accusations. The point was, true as what she said is, why should the left suddenly think such things are reasonable positions to have now but not earlier with Kavanaugh? The Dems are absolutely right concerning what can be realistically done concerning the allegations against Biden, but the same was true of Kavanaugh. 

My opinion, by the way, is that partisan politics is a blood sport; ruthless and utterly dishonest.   The 'end justifies the means'mantra is taken to the extreme.

Yes, it is. My purpose in involving myself in this discussion is to get people to basically agree to the same thing instead of all this bullshit about their candidate and the other guy's. It's all a clown show in a snake pit. You get people like JR thinking they are apostles for righteousness trying to enlighten the rest of us when the truth is it's all filth. Power always attracts the worst of us and, even if our system didn't start out that way, it has evolved into the den of thieves it has become.  

What makes me sick the most, though, is that the Dems are untouchable in virtue signaling. They are the absolute champions of it and the least deserving, in my opinion. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3    4 years ago

But not by much ;)

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.3  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @3    4 years ago

Trump is a misogynistic, narcissistic, creepy conman who probably wouldn't be anywhere today if not boosted by his father's money, and sexual allegations such as these come with the territory for him. He can lie with the worst of them, so it is just old hat. Trump, at least while he is in office, gets a pass on all of his misdeeds. All of his "perfect" phone calls and other stuff are all labeled "fake news" and "hoaxes" because the Dognald declares it so, and for no other reason. His sycophants rush to his aid, cleaning up his messes by spraying silage on them and declaring the smell wholesome... and they have been so brainwashed by this conman that they believe it is so.

Biden represents the continuation of Obama/Clinton which is kind of what got voted out in 2016. He never should have run in the first place. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or one of the others maybe Butigeg (Sorry Mayor Pete about the spelling) to balance the ticket (gosh, there were enough to choose from) could still be vying for the nomination. And now, Biden has a millstone tied around his ankle in the form of allegations of sexual misconduct on his part. And an allegation is all that needs be done, because the liar in chief will point at him and laugh, no matter how many women he has lined against him. (I mean that figuratively. Trump, no doubt, would love to have women lined up against him literally.)

I wouldn't mind seeing Trump and Biden both removed from consideration for the presidency but here we are. Seems like a repeat of 2016:This is all I have to choose from?!?!?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Thomas @3.3    4 years ago

Keep going with this "both sides" business. You will get Trump re-elected. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    4 years ago

And you know what Wally, I totally agreed with you about Kavanaugh

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.3    4 years ago

Even Republicans were believing Ford after her testimony. It was only when Trunp complained that Kavanaugh wasnt forceful enough and he came back after lunch and started crying and ranting that the mood among the GOP senators changed. 

Revisionist history suggests Ford stumbled or impeached her own testimony. That is absolutely not what happened. She just didnt have enough corroboration. 

By his own admission Kavanaugh was often drunk during the summer during his high school years. He hung with a bunch of privileged buddies who thought they were Gods gift to girls in their circle. It is highly possible he got drunk and tried to tear Fords clothes off one night. 

A better question is whether that should disqualify someone from high position. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.2    4 years ago

People are entirely justified stating negatives about both sides.   You of course are personally free to ignore the flaws on the D side and focus exclusively on the flaws of the R side, but chastising people for being honest is a losing method.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.6  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.5    4 years ago

This is a binary choice. You either want this absurd farce known as the Trump era presidency to last 4 1/2 more years or you don't. There is no viable third party candidate and there isnt going to be one in November. 

People who have to include  (in every analysis they make of the election) that both sides are flawed are simply playing into Trump's hands. He knows that people know he is a monumental asshole, and not fit to hold office. Of course he's proud that he is an asshole, but he's smart enough to know most people cant stand him. He HAS TO make it seem like the other guy is as bad as he is. This IS his campaign strategy, to muddy up his opponent as much as possible. 

"A pox on both their houses"  is the same thing as saying Trumps no worse than anyone else so its ok to vote for him. He's normal. 

This is not the time or the election to make the argument that there is no difference between the candidates, which is what third party types love to say incessantly. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.6    4 years ago
This is a binary choice. You either want this absurd farce known as the Trump era presidency to last 4 1/2 more years or you don't. There is no viable third party candidate and there isnt going to be one in November. 

Thing is John, Thomas was opining on our crappy choices.   And I agree with him.   The choices in 2020 are almost equivalently crappy to those of 2016.

Noting our crappy choices is not advocating for Trump.   It is honestly looking at reality.   Sometimes people do objective analysis.

Taking every opinion that is shy of 100% anti-Trump as support for Trump is irrational (and wrong).   I will object every time you do this.

This is not the time or the election to make the argument that there is no difference between the candidates, which is what third party types love to say incessantly. 

See?   Show me where Thomas argued that there is no difference between the candidates.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.3.8  Thomas  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.2    4 years ago

Listen, John, I know what I can observe, and what I can observe is that Chump and his sycophants will drag any claim, no matter how preposterous or not, around the news cycle so that even if it is later proven not to be true, to the Chump base it will be true. Period. End of Sentence. It will be promoted on social media, it will be driven home through Super PAC ads, it will be in the inbox of anyone who ever thought of supporting Chump and millions of those who did not. 

You heard it as well as I, straight from the liar who took over for the other liar who took over for the other liar: Chump was elected. Double standards can apply. It is the base of the capitol D's that have to ask themselves if they wish to remain true to their ideals or become hypocritical themselves and pursue the standards of "win at any cost" that the Capitol R's have adopted. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
6  MrFrost    4 years ago

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @6    4 years ago

And re-nomination for GOP campaign for POTUS

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7  seeder  Ender    4 years ago

I know this is about the allegations but is anyone else a little unnerved by the whole scalp reduction thing...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @7    4 years ago

I know I am going to sound dumb, but what are you talking about?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    4 years ago
Ivana said Trump attacked her after he underwent a painful "scalp reduction" procedure done by a doctor she had recommended, tearing her clothes and yanking out a chunk of her hair.
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @7.1.1    4 years ago

Oh wow... I never heard that story and I'm from NY. I didn't even know he had a scalp reduction.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
7.1.3  Thomas  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    4 years ago

Psssst... It was in the article. ;)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    4 years ago
It is about the Dem's hypocrisy i

I believe it was in an article about Trump in Vanity Fair years ago.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Thomas @7.1.3    4 years ago
Psssst... It was in the article.

I was kidding. Just loved that part of the story (the scalp reduction part.. not the battery part).

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.4    4 years ago
I believe it was in an article about Trump in Vanity Fair years ago.

It was. That divorce was on the local news endlessly. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.6    4 years ago

It was in the national news endlessly.  "Darling, don't get mad.  Get everything."

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.7    4 years ago
It was in the national news endlessly.  "Darling, don't get mad.  Get everything."

I didn't realize that. How funny!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
7.1.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.7    4 years ago

Ivana used that line in the movie The First Wife's Club and I loved it.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
8  lady in black    4 years ago

95138155_123680295961646_8078434442659495936_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_oc=AQlEonEbgyZOPdfFSv78sjLe7v8Wv2vQ5sg5uP_WGuJPxZkisdJJkfAP8N-qs_OpyiY&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=a8d75f33fb68ffc96af01ddaec1dc649&oe=5ECE6C14

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
9  Gazoo    4 years ago

25 women and no concrete proof, just allegations.

There is concrete proof that something inappropriate happened between biden and reade per her mothers phone call to larry king live in 1993.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Gazoo @9    4 years ago
25 women and no concrete proof, just allegations. There is concrete proof that something inappropriate happened between biden and reade per her mothers phone call to larry king live in 1993.

First of all, Trump said , from his own mouth "they let you do it. grab them by the pussy".

Do you know that one of Trump's accusers says that is exactly what he did to her , grabbed her by the pussy when they were alone in a side room at a social function?

There are other women who also say Trump tried to get his hand onto their private parts, tried to "grab them by the pussy" (his words).  

If the mother's words are "proof" about Biden, what are Trump's own words? 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
9.1.1  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    4 years ago

“First of all, Trump said , from his own mouth "they let you do it. grab them by the pussy".”

sounds like locker room talk to me. Lot’s of guys say things like that.

“Do you know that one of Trump's accusers says that is exactly what he did to her , grabbed her by the pussy when they were alone in a side room at a social function?”

did she make that claim before or after Trump said that? I’m betting after.

“There are other women who also say Trump tried to get his hand onto their private parts, tried to "grab them by the pussy" (his words).”

again, before or after? By the way, that sounds like what reade says of biden.

“If the mother's words are "proof" about Biden, what are Trump's own words?”

like i said before, lot’s of guys say things. That doesn’t mean they do or did them. It’s all allegations. One thing is certain, no one has come forward with a recording of any of those women’s mothers calling a radio or tv show claiming a billionaire did something inappropriate to their daughter.

none of us know for sure. None of us were there. The big story here is the left and their very loud reaction to kavanaugh and their deafening silence to biden. Do they know how ridiculous they look? Apparently not.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Gazoo @9.1.1    4 years ago

The idea that Biden is guilty of something along these lines ,but Trump is innocent , is completely bizarre. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
9.1.3  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    4 years ago

Where did i say that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    4 years ago

He did that to a woman on a plane as well, probably one of your 25 accusers

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
9.2  pat wilson  replied to  Gazoo @9    4 years ago
per her mothers phone call to larry king live in 1993.

Here say. Her mother wasn't there with her daughter when this allegedly happened.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @9.2    4 years ago
Here say. Her mother wasn't there with her daughter when this allegedly happened.

Seems Democrats were perfectly fine impugning Kavanaugh's reputation based on hearsay.

To say that Ford was more credible with her story than Reade and her story, one must have blinders on.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.1    4 years ago

Usual partisan garbage. 

Clinton's witch hunt was the same thing. 

But I bet you were fine with that at the time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.2.2    4 years ago
Usual partisan garbage. 

Yep, just like the left did to Kavanaugh.

If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

Clinton's witch hunt was the same thing. 

Okay.

But I bet you were fine with that at the time.

Only bet what you can afford to lose, then.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.1    4 years ago

What hearsay?  Ford's testimony was direct evidence, and totally admissible at trial.  I guess you missed the course on evidence in law school...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.2.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.3    4 years ago
Only bet what you can afford to lose, then.

I only do and I don't lose.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @9.2.4    4 years ago
What hearsay?  Ford's testimony was direct evidence, and totally admissible at trial. 

As would Reade's testimony.

I guess you missed the course on evidence in law school...

You are a horrible guesser. Perhaps you should just stop.

I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.2.7  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.6    4 years ago

I didn't say anything about Reade.  It's like you're arguing with yourself, and losing.

I know you're not a lawyer.  I was being "sarcastic".  That must be a term you're familiar with these days from your Fearless (Fearful) Leader.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gazoo @9    4 years ago
25 women and no concrete proof, just allegations.

OK, and how is that different from what is going on with Biden?

Answer: it isn't. 

Even Trump agrees. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
9.3.1  Gazoo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3    4 years ago

Then i disagree with Trump on this. The difference is a recording of reade’s mother complaining about something inappropriate that happened between her daughter and a prominent senator. The same cannot be said of the allegations against Trump.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.3.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gazoo @9.3.1    4 years ago

It is hearsay. I could call my mom and tell her you raped me. Did you? And how many times has she changed the story? Now add 20+ years to that and it becomes ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
9.3.3  Gazoo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.2    4 years ago

But you have never worked for me. In fact we have never met. That is a big difference between biden/reade and your scenario.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.4  Gsquared  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.2    4 years ago

Yes, someone relating what someone else told them is hearsay.  Someone testifying about what happened to them personally is direct evidence, not hearsay, unlike what some of the internet lawyers on here seem to think.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.3.5  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.4    4 years ago

So if Reade got up in front of a hearing, as Ford did, and recount what happened to her, then that would become evidence and not hearsay, right?

The problem with Ford is she couldn't even find someone to give hearsay.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.6  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @9.3.5    4 years ago

That is correct.  It would be direct evidence.  Then the issue becomes the credibility of the witness.

As I recall Ford did have some corroboration.  It has been a while and I don't remember all of the facts and circumstances of that case any more.   Under the law, a hearsay witness is not a witness at all although there are some limited exceptions to the hearsay rule.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.7  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @9.3.5    4 years ago

A witness can testify as to what they claim is direct evidence and be found to be totally not credible, and thus, not believed.  It happens all the time.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.3.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gazoo @9.3.1    4 years ago
The difference is a recording of reade’s mother complaining about something inappropriate that happened between her daughter and a prominent senator.

That is called hearsay. 

The same cannot be said of the allegations against Trump.

There was direct testimony against Trump by his Ivana about spousal abuse. Want to think about that for a minute?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.3.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  bugsy @9.3.5    4 years ago
The problem with Ford is she couldn't even find someone to give hearsay.

It's the other way around. If someone gives hearsay, then they need to back it up. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.3.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.7    4 years ago

Do you understand the difference between direct testimony and evidence?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.11  Gsquared  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.10    4 years ago

For clarification, direct testimony actually refers to testimony elicited from an attorney's own client or a favorable witness under direct examination.  The opposite of direct examination is cross-examination, which attempts to elicit testimony from an opposing party or an unfavorable witness.  Both can provide evidence.  

Why don't you tell me what you think the difference is? 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.12  Gsquared  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.10    4 years ago

I admit to inartfully using the term "direct" evidence attempting to juxtapose that with hearsay.  

Here are two informative links dealing with hearsay:  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.3.13  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.6    4 years ago
As I recall Ford did have some corroboration.  

Faulty recall then.

Ford had absolutely no one corroborate her story.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.14  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @9.3.13    4 years ago

It seems that I had very good recall now that I have read up on it again.  "Corroboration" does not have to be provided by eyewitness testimony, and there was, in fact, strong corroborating evidence.  In my opinion, Ford made a very credible witness, whereas Kavanaugh was a snivelling witness sadly lacking in credibility.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.3.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.11    4 years ago

You have it right. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.3.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.12    4 years ago

Now that was what I was looking for. Perfect.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.17  Gsquared  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.15    4 years ago

I had better get it right.  As soon as I saw your question, I realized my sloppy mistake.  I've been a lawyer for 40 years, although I am semi-retired now and have not had a trial for quite a while.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.18  Gsquared  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.16    4 years ago

I'm happy you approve.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9.3.19  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.17    4 years ago

Don't ever forget that Shakespeare wrote "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.19    4 years ago

Aren't you a lawyer?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.21  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.19    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.22  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.20    4 years ago

Aren't you a lawyer?

Buzz he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

Retired i be leavin

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.21    4 years ago

Typical stupid ass comment.  You don't look like you're going to be around much longer.

i love stupid ass comments,

like yours., asz an ample example.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.24  Gsquared  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.3.23    4 years ago

You seem the be the master of them.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.21    4 years ago

You do know Shakespeare, don't you? I would assume that someone who has a juris doctorate would be familiar with The Bard.

But I shouldn't assume....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.3.22    4 years ago

And this is why you're always in trouble....

lol

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.24    4 years ago

Once you get to know Iggy you will learn that he works hard at his craft

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.28  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.24    4 years ago

wanna debate em ?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.29  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.27    4 years ago

actually, more like unemployed, asz know work atall

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.30  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.25    4 years ago

Yes, I know Shakespeare.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.31  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.27    4 years ago

It appears to just come naturally...  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.32  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.30    4 years ago

Yes, I know Shakespeare.  

personally...?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.33  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.31    4 years ago

Appearances can be deceiving. You seem like a good person, let's try not to fight. Let's talk fishing!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.34  Gsquared  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.3.28    4 years ago

No, you win in that category.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.35  Gsquared  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.3.32    4 years ago

Proof!  You are on a winning streak...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.35    4 years ago

not my first streak

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.37  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.33    4 years ago

I'm not fighting with you at all.  Seriously, I'm not.  And thank you for the compliment.  I am certain that you are a good person, also.  My comment about it just coming naturally was not directed at you.  It was about how hard your "friend" works at his craft.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.38  Gsquared  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.3.36    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.39  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.38    4 years ago

yea, i'm the White Stripe on Brown under where which you'll find, one can go down faster than an aging Asian caucasion on okassion, as in most every not okshunned .

may B,we got off on the wrong foot, try rubbing the other one up here, feels good, like a splinter wood uner a hammered nail i could finger, like a Biden her time Trump accuser and lying abuser, so i'll decline your foot warming offer, as i'm a diplomatic hot pepper in a sensitive digestive system, and am not always easy to swallow (girth), so, 'can't we just all get along" little doggy, cause i'm a bachleor of benevolance, never married, just divorced to the realities, not all are ever gonna sea my depths, unless charged with an a temptation, that leave about any and all, in frustration, causeways abound to be more than some due a pier, just from my disadvantage point maid, N joy your day! 

i'm off to make Happy Hour MellonCollie Won se again

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.40  Gsquared  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.3.39    4 years ago

Actually  I think you are very funny.  I like you.  You are much funnier than I could ever hope to be.  My comment was deleted for "taunting".  I was just making fun.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.40    4 years ago

You can appeal your ticket

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.42  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.40    4 years ago

all good, i'm not  Trumpullthinskinned and do not get easily offended, as , i prefer onstarted, but, you probably don't want to get me onstarted either, as i have no brakes and won't stop once i start rolling as it gets

E Z er and Wider like it was JoB 1.5 that payed double time for double speak with a thrown in rhyme no reason without  care for the carefree Corona Dream i'm living and as reigning

often, i guess i could say i'm living the Corona Wet Dream, but dryer, due to close proximity of lower humidity , cause it's always the Heat in the kitchen, i stand on with my asbestos brake shoes during coffee breaks i can't stop taking either cause i don't drink coffee i spell it with a T, or Toffee , cause i get T'd off when i score TD's on T rumps D efenders  who have no defense against logic and reason i declared Independence from. As it was to prove my independence, and not just from logic and reason, as i'm game in all season 

tires

tired of the reason for non stop warn out Trump and his defenders style Treason trumpin all Facts, a US suicide pac, to kill off the weak and the poor, or make em move back next door neighborhood bullies start what Trump obviously can't finish just like Melania, the U S , and all around him    Diminish 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.43  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.41    4 years ago

You can appeal your ticket

i find my tickets very appealing and hope to gain enuff for the big stuffed bear in the back row with the fuzzy fro

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.44  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.3.43    4 years ago

I want the fuzzy tiger in the front

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.3.45  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.44    4 years ago

i'll tri and grab that one 

as well

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.46  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.41    4 years ago

Thanks for the tip, but it's ok.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.47  Gsquared  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.3.42    4 years ago

Trump?  What's a Trump?   Sounds like something hideous... and treasonous...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.48  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.47    4 years ago

It's the evil beast from the deepest, darkest caverns of the GOP soul

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.49  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.25    4 years ago

There is another saying:  Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

I have probably heard more lawyer jokes than anyone.  Some of my friends love to send them to me.  Some of them are even funny.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.50  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.48    4 years ago

The Greedy Old Pigs have no soul.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.51  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.49    4 years ago

I'm an environmental scientist and some of the people we don't like include lawyers so most of us have handful of lawyer jokes. Here's my favorite:

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start

What would an environmental scientist call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? An indiscriminate dumping of toxic waste

Here's another one for you:

Why did New York get all the lawyers and New Jersey got the dump sites? New Jersey won the coin toss.

I hope you find these funny and my intention was only to poke fun at lawyers but not be offensive.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.52  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.50    4 years ago

ooo...I like that!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.53  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.51    4 years ago

I would image that you like lawyers who defend the environment.  There are some.

Why don't sharks eat lawyers?  Professional courtesy.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.54  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.51    4 years ago

This is all a bit off topic from this important article about Trump's very serious malfeasance, but we could all use a few laughs right now.

So, here are a few more:

How does an attorney sleep?  First he lies on one side, then he lies on the other.

Why does the law prohibit sex between lawyers and their clients?  To prevent clients from being billed twice for essentially the same service.

How many lawyer jokes are there?  Only three.  The rest are true stories.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.55  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.53    4 years ago
I would image that you like lawyers who defend the environment.  There are some.

Yes, I do. I have a very nice man who is a lawyer that I work with all the time. He likes how I put my cases together

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.56  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.55    4 years ago

I knew that.  (See 9.3.25)

My wife ordered some clippers and she wants to give me haircut now.  The place I usually go is closed for the quarantine.  I'm a little bit nervous about this.  And that's no joke!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.58  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.55    4 years ago

Sorry.  See 9.3.49.  You were 9.3.25.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9.3.59  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.49    4 years ago

I really enjoy lawyer jokes but only know a few of them..  Can you send me a few of your favourites and I'll send you the ones I know. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9.3.60  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.54    4 years ago

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?     A good start.

(I always follow that one up with one you already said - Why don't they get eaten by the sharks?  Professional courtesy.). 

What's the difference between a lawyer and a whore?  A whore can screw you only when you're alive.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.61  Trout Giggles  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.59    4 years ago

I will if I can remember the rest that I have.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.62  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.56    4 years ago

I'm about to go GI Jane on my hair

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.63  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.59    4 years ago

You do realize that the Shakespeare line was delivered by Dick the Butcher, a very unsavory character and follower of the rebel, Jack Cade, who was attempting to overthrow the King?  Some writers think " Shakespeare meant it as a compliment to attorneys and judges who instill justice in society. "

See also Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens opinion in Walters vs. The National Association of Radiation Survivors (fn. 24).  I am certain you will want to do the research.

I am not defending all lawyers.  Far from it.  I have encountered some lawyers who have no business being licensed to practice.  Terrible, terrible lawyers.  The lawyers who oppose the important work done by our friend Trout Giggles likely deserve the utmost condemnation.

I will try and go back through my emails and see if I can find more that people have sent me.  The 3 additional jokes I posted at 9.3.54 are some of my favorites.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.64  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.63    4 years ago
The lawyers who oppose the important work done by our friend Trout Giggles likely deserve the utmost condemnation.

And boy do we get some winners....

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.65  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.59    4 years ago

This isn't exactly a lawyer joke, but...

A drunk was in front of a Judge.  The Judge says, "You were brought here for drinking."  The drunk says "OK, Let's get started."

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.66  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.59    4 years ago

Subject:   Three Kick Rule

 A lawyer went duck hunting in rural Iowa.  He shot and dropped a bird, 
 but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of a fence.  As 
 the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his 
 tractor and asked him what he was  doing.

 The lawyer responded, "I shot a duck and it fell in this field, and 
  now I'm going to retrieve it." The old farmer replied, "This is my  
  property, and you are not coming over here."
 
  The indignant lawyer said, "I'm one of the best trial attorneys in 
  California and, if you don't  let me get that duck, I'll sue you and 
  take everything you own."
 
   The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we 
   settle disputes in Iowa. We settle small disagreements like this with  
   the Iowa Three Kick Rule."
 
   The lawyer asked, "What's that?"
 
   The farmer replied, "Well, because the dispute occurs on my land, 
   first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times and so 
   on back and forth until someone gives up."
 
   The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided 
   that he could easily take on the old codger. He agreed to abide by the 
   local custom.
 
   The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to 
   the attorney.  His first kick planted the toe of his heavy steel-toed 
   work boot into the lawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees.  His 
   second kick to the midriff sent the  lawyer's last meal gushing from 
   his mouth.
 
   The barrister was on all fours when the farmer's third kick to his 
   rear end sent him face-first into a fresh cow pie. The lawyer 
   summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet.  Wiping 
   his face with the arm of his jacket, he said, "Okay, you old coot. 
   Now it's my turn."
 
   The old farmer smiled and said, "Naw, I give up.  You can have the 
   duck."

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.3.67  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.64    4 years ago

If it makes you feel any better, see 9.3.66.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.68  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.67    4 years ago

I like that one

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9.3.69  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gsquared @9.3.63    4 years ago

I really don't care about the context of it, but if had known that T-shirts were being made embazoned with that line I sure as hell would have bought one and worn it. 

I really like the "true story" joke. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
9.4  MrFrost  replied to  Gazoo @9    4 years ago

Trump actually bragged about sexual assault, several times. So what I want to know is why is it such a stretch to believe that trump sexually assaulted a woman, or several for that matter? If Biden had bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, would you be shocked if he had an allegation? Of course not. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
9.4.2  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @9.4.1    4 years ago

512

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
12  Dismayed Patriot    4 years ago

"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," Trump said during remarks in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania at a 2016 campaign event. "Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

Apparently, the only liar is Trump who not only didn't sue a single one of them, at least one sued him for defamation. Just another campaign promise Trump failed to keep but his followers keep investing in his mountain of bullshit. No wonder they are reticent about calling Trump to account, if they did that mountain of bullshit will tumble down in their faces. I suppose for some, it's easier to support a known sexual predator with 25 accusations of sexual assault, 1 accusation of rape of a 13 year old, cheated on all three of his wives, paid hundreds of thousands to porn stars to keep them silent about their affairs and in his own words said he doesn't "even wait" for consent and just starts kissing women he finds attractive and grabbing them "by the pussy" because in his words, "You can do anything" "when you're a star", than it is to admit they were wrong.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12    4 years ago

"than it is to admit they were wrong."

seems they follow Trumps lead

vested warn weight, that drags US All to the bottom, where he and they belong, while we're just drugged along for the ride (sortaglad i'm drugged , as this would be a real drag, otherwise ...others NOT!)

 
 

Who is online




81 visitors