Biden Tracker (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

  • and most people have 2 or 3 of them to make ends meet in this wonderful economy. I understand carrying water for your team, but to deny reality is funny. Only 44% of Dems and left leaners think this. That means over half actually have been to a grocery store and spent their own money.
    Luckily the public knows the economy is horrible despite the claims otherwise and the manipulated jobs numbers. Most people will be voting on their pocketbooks and that's why Biden will lose.

    I love to see Democrats mocking people online who say the economy isn't good for them. Real good strategy
     
    You're starting to sound like a bad AI chat program quoting economic theory in a very compartmentalized way. Instead of trying to shoehorn what I'm saying into the economic theory you've learned, hear it in the human terms that I'm actually speaking. Or not. The choice is yours.

    Humans competing with each other instead of cooperating exists outside of capitalism. Some humans within capitalism cooperate economically. Textbook, theoretical capitalism and actual real world capitalism are very different.

    Anyone trying to eliminate the competition is being competitive. They are competing to be the dominant party, no matter what their motivation is to be dominant. Domination is competitive.

    Even if a person manages to dominate everyone else they still keep competing to maintain that domination.
    I'm guessing the numbers are even worse now



    Democrats like open borders for more representation in Congress and eventual votes once they eventually get amnesty passed.

    What I don't understand is why the progressive DA's that Soros likes to support don't want to prosecute many criminals.

    I don’t understand why the people Trump supports want to destroy democracy.
     
    Luckily the public knows the economy is horrible despite the claims otherwise and the manipulated jobs numbers. Most people will be voting on their pocketbooks and that's why Biden will lose.

    I love to see Democrats mocking people online who say the economy isn't good for them. Real good strategy
    Luckily, the same problems with capitalism occurred under Trump. The only thing Trump cared about was the stock market which can be seen by his Covid response. In addition, the failed CoVid response resulted in hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. Still wasn’t enough to get Trump re-elected so he decided to undermine the democratic institutions established by the constitution after undermining the press which, incidentally, Jefferson revered.

    Real good strategy to support a serial fraudster. Real good strategy by the Republican Party. Of course, they have literally nothing left to offer.
     
    Luckily the public knows the economy is horrible despite the claims otherwise and the manipulated jobs numbers. Most people will be voting on their pocketbooks and that's why Biden will lose.

    I love to see Democrats mocking people online who say the economy isn't good for them. Real good strategy
    right everyone knows. I mean it's so obvious employment way up record stock market and such ya its horrible. we need to go back to the record unemployment trump had and record stock crashes and the worst GDP ever. thats a sure fie improvement. I mean trump really increased the economy. well his own economy anyway.
     
    I'm guessing the numbers are even worse now


    You don't need to guess, you just need to put any effort into accurately informing yourself. Here's my sincere effort to help you with that. What you do with it is entirely your choice.














     
    Believe all women or not this one because it's (D)ifferent?
    Believe all women unless reasonable questions about a specific woman's claims surface.

    I don't know what actually happened between Biden and Tara Reade. When she first made her claims public, I was disappointed with Biden and thought, "et tu, Biden?" But then questions were raised about Tara and her claims. For instance:

    (I read other sources originally, but this one covers it and the link was handy thanks to @bird )

    Reade had spoken highly of Biden, the former boss who employed her as a staff assistant from late 1992 to August 1993, and never mentioned assault or harassment, Wrye recalls.

    Wrye’s distressing experience with Reade wasn’t an isolated case. Over the past decade, Reade has left a trail of aggrieved acquaintances in California’s Central Coast region who say they remember two things about her — she spoke favorably about her time working for Biden, and she left them feeling duped.

    I know two women who were sexually assaulted. They both told me shortly after it happened and swore me to secrecy. Neither of those women ever spoke highly of the people who assaulted them. Whenever their assailants names came up in conversation with others, they checked out of the conversation completely. Whenever they encountered their assailants in social settings, they were civil, but never cordial.

    POLITICO interviewed more than a dozen people, many of whom interacted with Reade through her involvement in the animal-rescue community. A number of those in close contact with Reade over the past 12 years, a period in which she went by the names Tara Reade, Tara McCabe or Alexandra McCabe,...

    I automatically doubt the credibility of anyone who uses multiple aliases.

    Also, there's two details of her claim that raise questions for me. The first is that she changed her accusation of what Biden specifically said and did to almost exactly mirror what E Jean Carroll accused Trump of saying and doing and she did so only after the specific details of E Jean Carroll's claims became public.

    I tend to doubt coincidences, especially in the case of Trump's election opponent being accused, in the middle of an election campaign, of performing almost the exact same specific acts that Trump was first accused of saying and doing. At first Reade claimed:

    ‘He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck,’ Reade said. ‘I would just kind of freeze and wait for him to stop doing that.’

    Then Reade later changed her claim to a near mirror image of the specific details of E Jean Carroll's claim. That raises a lot of doubt and skepticism for me.

    Another detail that is questionable for me is Reade's claim that Biden assaulted her in a hallway. Sexual predators usually avoid assaulting people in public spaces, like a hallway. Even Carroll claims Trump waited until Carroll was in the concealed privacy of a dressing room to attack her. That's more consistent with predatorial behavior, so its' more believable to me than someone being assaulted in a hallway. Biden had ample opportunity to assault Reade as claimed in a concealed, private space with no risk of being caught, so why take the unnecessary risk of a hallway?

    All of the above is why I now question Reade's accusations. The key word is "question." I don't know what happened, but I do have doubts about what Reade claims happened and I don't simply take her word for it. If a jury ever finds at the end of a trial that Biden did rape Reade as she claims, then I will give her and the jury the benefit of doubt.
     
    Last edited:
    Believe all women unless reasonable questions about a specific woman's claims surface.

    I don't know what actually happened between Biden and Tara Reade. When she first made her claims public, I was disappointed with Biden and thought, "et tu, Biden?" But then questions were raised about Tara and her claims. For instance:

    (I read other sources originally, but this one covers it and the link was handy thanks to @bird )





    I know two women who were sexually assaulted. They both told me shortly after it happened and swore me to secrecy. Neither of those women ever spoke highly of the people who assaulted them. Whenever their assailants names came up in conversation with others, they checked out of the conversation completely. Whenever they encountered their assailants in social settings, they were civil, but never cordial.



    I automatically doubt the credibility of anyone who uses multiple aliases.

    Also, there's two details of her claim that raise questions for me. The first is that she changed her accusation of what Biden specifically said and did to almost exactly mirror what E Jean Carroll accused Trump of saying and doing and she did so only after the specific details of E Jean Carroll's claims became public.

    I tend to doubt coincidences, especially in the case of Trump's election opponent being accused, in the middle of an election campaign, of performing almost the exact same specific acts that Trump was first accused of saying and doing. At first Reade claimed:



    Then Reade later changed her claim to a near mirror image of the specific details of E Jean Carroll's claim. That raises a lot of doubt and skepticism for me.

    Another detail that is questionable for me is Reade's claim that Biden assaulted her in a hallway. Sexual predators usually avoid assaulting people in public spaces, like a hallway. Even Carroll claims Trump waited until Carroll was in the concealed privacy of a dressing room to attack her. That's more consistent with predatorial behavior, so its' more believable to me than someone being assaulted in a hallway. Biden had ample opportunity to assault Reade as claimed in a concealed, private space with no risk of being caught, so why take the unnecessary risk of a hallway?

    All of the above is why I now question Reade's accusations. The key word is "question." I don't know what happened, but I do have doubts about what Reade claims happened and I don't simply take her word for it. If a jury ever finds at the end of a trial that Biden did rape Reade as she claims, then I will give her and the jury the benefit of doubt.
    One other detail was she claimed she wasn’t wearing pantyhose at the time. When it was required in the dress code and all women who worked at the Capitol were required to wear them at all times. That, plus what you mentioned, plus no contemporary corroboration, plus the fact that the area wasn’t private at all, and he had to pull down pantyhose too? Plus history of bogus accusations. Plus her actions after her accusation was looked into and discounted….well, it’s pretty transparent.
     
    When I first approached Robert Hur for an interview, soon after his appointment as special counsel, fourteen months ago, he demurred, saying, “I’m boring.”

    Then his circumstances changed. When we finally met, he pulled up in an armored black government S.U.V., accompanied by two U.S. marshals.

    Hur had completed his report on whether President Joe Biden had mishandled classified documents—he had declined to prosecute Biden but had impugned the President’s memory in the process—and members of both parties were furious.

    “I knew it was going to be unpleasant,” he told me this past week, “but the level of vitriol—it’s hard to know exactly how intense that’s going to be until the rotten fruit is being thrown at you.”…….

     
    Don't look now. I don't want to alarm you. But Putin might be under your bed!
    Either you don’t know, or you are deflecting desperately. Which is it? If you are deflecting, then your repeated pushing of Reade’s accusation seems trollish to me. And is yet another example of you parroting Russian talking points. 🤷‍♀️ Nothing we didn’t already know that you do.
     
    One other detail was she claimed she wasn’t wearing pantyhose at the time. When it was required in the dress code and all women who worked at the Capitol were required to wear them at all times.
    I missed or forgot about the pantyhose detail. I didn't know it was required by dress code. I think that's a really "effed" up dress code.
     
    I missed or forgot about the pantyhose detail. I didn't know it was required by dress code. I think that's a really "effed" up dress code.
    Was completely normal in those days. We had a similar dress code in high school when I started. It changed by the time I graduated.
     
    Either you don’t know, or you are deflecting desperately. Which is it? If you are deflecting, then your repeated pushing of Reade’s accusation seems trollish to me. And is yet another example of you parroting Russian talking points. 🤷‍♀️ Nothing we didn’t already know that you do.
    It's like I'm discussing foreign policy with an 8 year old as much as you mention or blame everything on Russia.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom