Moving Forward from Biden Allegations

[Shofercia]

Because of posts like this one:



Because Tara Reade has been accused of being pro-Putin, pro-Bernie, pro-insertsomethinghere, by those who call themselves "Liberals" just to defend their newly anointed candidate. Thinking that Tara Reade is coming forward with her allegations, either solely, or primarily because of her political bias, is ridiculous; ergo, I'm making fun of it.

Ah, ok. I agree that her having anything to do with the Russians seems highly unlikely. She might have positive opinions on them, but that's not really relevant.

I'd say the exact same thing about her views on Bernie. She's not going to make up an allegation to get Bernie nominated.

[Inner Firatrundessia]

Ah, ok. I agree that her having anything to do with the Russians seems highly unlikely. She might have positive opinions on them, but that's not really relevant.

I'd say the exact same thing about her views on Bernie. She's not going to make up an allegation to get Bernie nominated.

Honestly if Bernie did end up have an accuser, I would 100% believe her. I think bernie is the better alternative than Joe or Donald, but he's had some issues regarding womyn's rights. I'm not a berniebro and I preferred Warren over Bernie.

His 1973 essay on rape culture is problematic. But more importantly he did not do enough to prevent staffers from his own campaign sexually harraaing female staffers. There were a few womyn who tried to report it, but the cards seemed to be stacked against the accusers to make reports (I'm also aware that Hillary's campaign had the same problem in 2016)

That and his toxic fanbase. Berniebros can indeed be some of the most vile and hateful bitter people I've ever seen on the internet. But at the same time, I recognise that many womyn (especially womyn of color) do supprt him, and stereotyping every single Bernie supporter as a sexist middle class white male, is harmful and ends up invalidating these womyn.

While I understand and appreciate Bernie supporters siding with Tara Read (many of them also support Ford, who was Kannavaugh's accuser) I do worry that if someone came forward and accused Bernie, these same 'woke' berniebros would turn their backs on such an accuser. But I dunno, that's just what I think.

Ah, ok. I agree that her having anything to do with the Russians seems highly unlikely. She might have positive opinions on them, but that's not really relevant.

More so it's just the age long American mythos that anything you don't like is the Soviets - or now Russians - fault.

That's the problem with russiagate. It's a real problem that the president of the United States has acted in an inappropriate manner with a foreign government, but liberals can and do use it to silence people they don't agree with, especially womyn they don't agree with.

It really angers me that liberal men are using that clip of "Putin's mistress" from Dr Phil, when it's not even the same person, the woman "Jennifer" (they don't use real names on Dr Phil) looks NOTHING like Tara Read, yet the liberals keep spreading lies and slandering Tara because 'muh russia'.

[Cisairse]

There are also people whose careers haven't been ruined despite facing much more credible allegations.

You are the epitome of why liberal '''''''''feminism''''''''' is a fucking joke. Like, who are you to seem something 'un'credible just because it suits your agenda? Please

I'm not a liberal. Nice try, though.

[Chessmistress]

I'd say the exact same thing about her views on Bernie. She's not going to make up an allegation to get Bernie nominated.

Honestly if Bernie did end up have an accuser, I would 100% believe her. I think bernie is the better alternative than Joe or Donald, but he's had some issues regarding womyn's rights. I'm not a berniebro and I preferred Warren over Bernie.

His 1973 essay on rape culture is problematic. But more importantly he did not do enough to prevent staffers from his own campaign sexually harraaing female staffers. There were a few womyn who tried to report it, but the cards seemed to be stacked against the accusers to make reports (I'm also aware that Hillary's campaign had the same problem in 2016)

That and his toxic fanbase. Berniebros can indeed be some of the most vile and hateful bitter people I've ever seen on the internet. But at the same time, I recognise that many womyn (especially womyn of color) do supprt him, and stereotyping every single Bernie supporter as a sexist middle class white male, is harmful and ends up invalidating these womyn.

While I understand and appreciate Bernie supporters siding with Tara Read (many of them also support Ford, who was Kannavaugh's accuser) I do worry that if someone came forward and accused Bernie, these same 'woke' berniebros would turn their backs on such an accuser. But I dunno, that's just what I think.

More so it's just the age long American mythos that anything you don't like is the Soviets - or now Russians - fault.

That's the problem with russiagate. It's a real problem that the president of the United States has acted in an inappropriate manner with a foreign government, but liberals can and do use it to silence people they don't agree with, especially womyn they don't agree with.

It really angers me that liberal men are using that clip of "Putin's mistress" from Dr Phil, when it's not even the same person, the woman "Jennifer" (they don't use real names on Dr Phil) looks NOTHING like Tara Read, yet the liberals keep spreading lies and slandering Tara because 'muh russia'.

^this^

I agree.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

womyn

...

???

[Inner Firatrundessia]

...

womyn

...

???

I don't understand why you are confused.

[Stellar Colonies]

???

I don't understand why you are confused.

I was at first.

After a minute or so of Googling, I then found it funny.

[Asardia]

The same could be said for many other people whose careers/lives were ruined with similar "allegations". My point is this double standard right here.

There are also people whose careers haven't been ruined despite facing much more credible allegations.

So if I may ask, what are your thoughts on the idea of believing all women? Is it innocent until proven guilty? Is it "women only speak out in order to destroy men's careers", or is it something else? Because your original reply basically implied that she's only doing this to derail Biden's campaign, which is sad.

[Albrenia]

It's just some weird thing with not wanting the word 'woman' to contain the word 'man'.

[Uiiop]

There are also people whose careers haven't been ruined despite facing much more credible allegations.

So if I may ask, what are your thoughts on the idea of believing all women? Is it innocent until proven guilty? Is it "women only speak out in order to destroy men's careers", or is it something else? Because your original reply basically implied that she's only doing this to derail Biden's campaign, which is sad.

tbf (some) isn't the same as enough.

[Nazeroth]

So if I may ask, what are your thoughts on the idea of believing all women? Is it innocent until proven guilty? Is it "women only speak out in order to destroy men's careers", or is it something else? Because your original reply basically implied that she's only doing this to derail Biden's campaign, which is sad.

tbf (some) isn't the same as enough.

Tbf “believe all women” is an idiotic statement

[Uiiop]

tbf (some) isn't the same as enough.

Tbf “believe all women” is an idiotic statement

Tbf in the sense of that only meaning one applies"Innocent before guilty" on the accuser it isn't. That's different from viewing the accuser as correct in what she's saying.

[Nazeroth]

Tbf “believe all women” is an idiotic statement

Tbf in the sense of that only meaning one applies"Innocent before guilty" on the accuser it isn't. That's different from viewing the accuser as correct in what she's saying.

It directly apllies to guilty until proven innocnent which is ass backwards

And it was used in a way to call for the expelling of kavanaugh or were you not paying attention to high level democrats and their virtue signalling during kavanaugh, making him out to be a drunk rapist.

[Nazeroth]

https://youtu.be/euuZl475skY

It also gives trump and the gop a green light for ads like this

Meetoo was a democrat political weapon that ended up causing massive amounts of damage to real rape victims

[Uiiop]

Tbf in the sense of that only meaning one applies"Innocent before guilty" on the accuser it isn't. That's different from viewing the accuser as correct in what she's saying.

It directly apllies to guilty until proven innocnent which is ass backwards

And it was used in a way to call for the expelling of kavanaugh or were you not paying attention to high level democrats and their virtue signalling during kavanaugh, making him out to be a drunk rapist.

That sentiment is mixed in with the idea that fucking up the investigation and perjury is just as much as a disqualifier as being found guilty. If not evidence for that guilt in itself.

[Nazeroth]

It directly apllies to guilty until proven innocnent which is ass backwards

And it was used in a way to call for the expelling of kavanaugh or were you not paying attention to high level democrats and their virtue signalling during kavanaugh, making him out to be a drunk rapist.

That sentiment is mixed in with the idea that fucking up the investigation and perjury is just as much as a disqualifier as being found guilty. If not evidence for that guilt in itself.

Thats not what the meetoo movement argued

[Cisairse]

There are also people whose careers haven't been ruined despite facing much more credible allegations.

So if I may ask, what are your thoughts on the idea of believing all women?

Farcical.

Is it innocent until proven guilty?

Legally, yes. From the perspective of you and I, you should make informed judgements based on available evidence and facts. It would be silly to equate lack of a legal conviction with lack of a crime committed.

Is it "women only speak out in order to destroy men's careers",

That's just as dumb of an idea as "believe all women."

or is it something else? Because your original reply basically implied that she's only doing this to derail Biden's campaign, which is sad.

What I said earlier in this thread was that there appears to be more evidence that this is a politically-motivated ordeal than there is evidence that Ms. Reade was actually sexually assaulted by Mr. Biden. I do not know that it is politically motivated, just like we don't know whether Mr. Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade or not. However, given the current evidence available to the public, I believe it is more consistent with the facts to conclude that he did not.

[Uiiop]

That sentiment is mixed in with the idea that fucking up the investigation and perjury is just as much as a disqualifier as being found guilty. If not evidence for that guilt in itself.

Thats not what the meetoo movement argued

In this case yes it did.

Tbh both what you pointed to and what i said is something #Metoo both buys into. That's the problem with decentralized movements. Not everyone can act out a slogan with all the nuances intended.

[Nazeroth]

So if I may ask, what are your thoughts on the idea of believing all women?

Farcical.

Is it innocent until proven guilty?

Legally, yes. From the perspective of you and I, you should make informed judgements based on available evidence and facts. It would be silly to equate lack of a legal conviction with lack of a crime committed.

Is it "women only speak out in order to destroy men's careers",

That's just as dumb of an idea as "believe all women."

or is it something else? Because your original reply basically implied that she's only doing this to derail Biden's campaign, which is sad.

What I said earlier in this thread was that there appears to be more evidence that this is a politically-motivated ordeal than there is evidence that Ms. Reade was actually sexually assaulted by Mr. Biden. I do not know that it is politically motivated, just like we don't know whether Mr. Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade or not. However, given the current evidence available to the public, I believe it is more consistent with the facts to conclude that he did not.

Theres more evidence here than their ever was with kavanaugh

Political or not( as if kavanaugh was not a straight up politican stunt)

[Nazeroth]

Thats not what the meetoo movement argued

In this case yes it did.

Tbh both what you pointed to and what i said is something #Metoo both buys into. That's the problem with decentralized movements. Not everyone can act out a slogan with all the nuances intended.

“In this case”

So we just change what meetoo is when its against our political interests

Really fucking scummy there

[Cisairse]

Tbf in the sense of that only meaning one applies"Innocent before guilty" on the accuser it isn't. That's different from viewing the accuser as correct in what she's saying.

It directly apllies to guilty until proven innocnent which is ass backwards

And it was used in a way to call for the expelling of kavanaugh or were you not paying attention to high level democrats and their virtue signalling during kavanaugh, making him out to be a drunk rapist.

Kavanaugh was unfit to be a Supreme Court justice regardless of the truth of Ms. Blasey Ford's testimony.

[Uiiop]

In this case yes it did.

Tbh both what you pointed to and what i said is something #Metoo both buys into. That's the problem with decentralized movements. Not everyone can act out a slogan with all the nuances intended.

“In this case”

So we just change what meetoo is when its against our political interests

Really fucking scummy there

I don't think it counts as a change. Just that the movement has some incoherence inherent to the flaws of it's structure.

[Nazeroth]

“In this case”

So we just change what meetoo is when its against our political interests

Really fucking scummy there

I don't think it counts as a change. Just that the movement has some incoherence inherent to the flaws of it's structure.

How convinient that we can go “look we were total pieces of shit less than a year ago but now we have seen the light after our guy is accussed”

What in the hypocritical patriarchy am i hearing

[Cisairse]

Farcical.



Legally, yes. From the perspective of you and I, you should make informed judgements based on available evidence and facts. It would be silly to equate lack of a legal conviction with lack of a crime committed.



That's just as dumb of an idea as "believe all women."



What I said earlier in this thread was that there appears to be more evidence that this is a politically-motivated ordeal than there is evidence that Ms. Reade was actually sexually assaulted by Mr. Biden. I do not know that it is politically motivated, just like we don't know whether Mr. Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade or not. However, given the current evidence available to the public, I believe it is more consistent with the facts to conclude that he did not.

Theres more evidence here than their ever was with kavanaugh

Political or not( as if kavanaugh was not a straight up politican stunt)

Care to explain how that's relevant to my post in any way?

[Nazeroth]

It directly apllies to guilty until proven innocnent which is ass backwards

And it was used in a way to call for the expelling of kavanaugh or were you not paying attention to high level democrats and their virtue signalling during kavanaugh, making him out to be a drunk rapist.

Kavanaugh was unfit to be a Supreme Court justice regardless of the truth of Ms. Blasey Ford's testimony.

That dosnt change the accussations that were pressed with basically zero evidence