Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

Joe Biden - More Racism

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Yep.  And if he were smart he would have a good cross section of people.  Again I would like to see Amash as Attorney General.  
 

 

He should go with Huntsman as Secretary of State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Walk me though your thinking.

There is significant evidence showing that Joe Biden raped Tara Read, said and did racist stuff about Black People, lied and got us into foreign wars, and lied about his resume.

 

Why should a voter disregard that stuff?   

(Trump also has his skeletons---no argument there... just talking about Joe Biden).

Because there isn’t significant evidence unless you think accusations of the Reade and Ford should be believed solely because their women.   The record she said she filed doesn’t exist, the people in the office don’t correlate her story and now a number of convictions in CA are at risk because she likely lied under oath.   
 

Even her own lawyer has dropped her as a client.   Whether Biden did the other stuff you claim I can’t say.  But given your credibility on other claims like rape, it’s hard to take anything you say seriously other than a low brow fishing attempt.  :fishing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
7 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Because he admits he was wrong in the past and has shown that he's made an effort to change. Most people are taught to accept apologies that seem genuine and move on.  (whether we should when it comes to politicians is another story).

Here's his apology for this weeks blunder: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/05/22/biden-says-you-aint-black-if-youd-vote-for-trump-over-him-uproar-ensues/

He admitted that he was wrong to rape Tara Reade?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

Because there isn’t significant evidence unless you think accusations of the Reade and Ford should be believed solely because their women.   The record she said she filed doesn’t exist, the people in the office don’t correlate her story and now a number of convictions in CA are at risk because she likely lied under oath.   
 

Even her own lawyer has dropped her as a client.   Whether Biden did the other stuff you claim I can’t say.  But given your credibility on other claims like rape, it’s hard to take anything you say seriously other than a low brow fishing attempt.  :fishing:

There actually is significant evidence that Joe Biden raped Tara Reade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

He should go with Huntsman as Secretary of State.

That is interesting.  The troublemaker in me would like to see Pete B. as Secretary of State. Imagine the reaction in Saudi Arabia when the gay SecState walks in.   :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Perhaps not but if I were Biden I would ask.   It’s not the first time people from other parties have been in the cabinet.   

Sure. But Amash actually has principles and conviction. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

My bad.  I incorrectly thought are a Joe Biden supporter / voter, because you are critical of Trump.

Just like you incorrectly assumed I am a Trump supporter / voter, because I have been critical of Biden.

you've spent the entire day defending trump

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BSUTOP25 said:

Sure. But Amash actually has principles and conviction. 

Which is exactly why he is needed to run Justice after Holder and Barr.   It is critical the country trusts the Justice department again and if I’m Biden it is exactly what I say to Amash.  That in this moment his country needs him.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Which is exactly why he is needed to run Justice after Holder and Barr.   It is critical the country trusts the Justice department again and if I’m Biden it is exactly what I say to Amash.  That in this moment his country needs him.   

We need a cure for every form of cancer too. Might as well wish for a bunch of rainbow and unicorn shit while we’re at it. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
26 minutes ago, happycamper said:

you've spent the entire day defending trump

One of the most shallow conclusions I've read in a while.  ^^^^

 

How did I defend Trump at all?

(1) I discussed why I disliked Twitter's policy of censorship / "fact checking" (it was in the context of Trump's post, yes..but I dislike this for anyone.... I even posted an example of AOC).  So I discussed an idea here.

(2) I criticized Joe Biden's history of racism, rape, and lying

 

None of the above is a defense of Trump.   

 

 

https://deadline.com/2020/05/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-avoid-harm-censorship-1202944403/

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Says Platform Policing Should Be Limited To Avoiding “Imminent Harm”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

One of the most shallow conclusions I've read in a while.  ^^^^

 

How did I defend Trump at all?

(1) I discussed why I disliked Twitter's policy of censorship / "fact checking" (it was in the context of Trump's post, yes..but I dislike this for anyone.... I even posted an example of AOC).  So I discussed an idea here.

(2) I criticized Joe Biden's history of racism, rape, and lying

 

None of the above is a defense of Trump.   

 

 

https://deadline.com/2020/05/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-avoid-harm-censorship-1202944403/

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Says Platform Policing Should Be Limited To Avoiding “Imminent Harm”

 

You spent all day defending Trump stunner. We get it, you can't both be your troll persona and who you actually are when you discuss politics. 2nd rater.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, happycamper said:

You spent all day defending Trump stunner.

 

One of the most shallow conclusions I've read in a while.  ^^^^

 

How did I defend Trump at all?

(1) I discussed why I disliked Twitter's policy of censorship / "fact checking" (it was in the context of Trump's post, yes..but I dislike this for anyone.... I even posted an example of AOC).  So I discussed an idea here.

(2) I criticized Joe Biden's history of racism, rape, and lying

 

None of the above is a defense of Trump.   

 

 

https://deadline.com/2020/05/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-avoid-harm-censorship-1202944403/

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Says Platform Policing Should Be Limited To Avoiding “Imminent Harm”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Because there isn’t significant evidence unless you think accusations of the Reade and Ford should be believed solely because their women.   The record she said she filed doesn’t exist, the people in the office don’t correlate her story and now a number of convictions in CA are at risk because she likely lied under oath.   
 

Even her own lawyer has dropped her as a client.   Whether Biden did the other stuff you claim I can’t say.  But given your credibility on other claims like rape, it’s hard to take anything you say seriously other than a low brow fishing attempt.  :fishing:

Almost Biden’s EXACT words.  😂 

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, #1Stunner said:

There actually is significant evidence that Joe Biden raped Tara Reade.

You mean like her claim that he did so? That holds little weight today: https://news.yahoo.com/biden-accusers-credentials-expert-testimony-230132449.html

I don't think getting slightly wrong her dates of employment with Biden's office means much. However, claiming under oath to have a college degree when the school says she didn't is a pretty big deal. And claiming under oath to have appeared as an expert witness in about 20 prior cases and later backtracking to say it was probably about half that is another big deal. FYI, expert witnesses differ from "percipient" witnesses in that they are allowed to give their opinion on an issue at bar. They aren't allowed to do that unless first "qualified" by the relevant judge to serve as an expert. From what I understand, it isn't that difficult to get a judge to do so if the side against whom the expert will testify doesn't actively challenge their credibility. It's also quite rare for the alleged expert not to bring with them to court a CV which lists their qualifications, including citations to prior cases in which they have been qualified to serve as such. Therefore, I find it very odd that she could have backtracked on the number of times she has done so unless opposing counsel led her to think he might vet her claim to 20 times.

Want to know why Reade's lawyer withdrew his representation? You can bet it's the stuff above and that he may also have uncovered other reasons to think that in a court of law her credibility would be in great doubt. But don't be surprised if she gets someone else to represent her. There are plenty of underemployed attorneys out there who would take her case just for the free publicity it would bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
6 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

You mean like her claim that he did so? That holds little weight today: https://news.yahoo.com/biden-accusers-credentials-expert-testimony-230132449.html

I don't think getting slightly wrong her dates of employment with Biden's office means much. However, claiming under oath to have a college degree when the school says she didn't is a pretty big deal. And claiming under oath to have appeared as an expert witness in about 20 prior cases and later backtracking to say it was probably about half that is another big deal. FYI, expert witnesses differ from "percipient" witnesses in that they are allowed to give their opinion on an issue at bar. They aren't allowed to do that unless first "qualified" by the relevant judge to serve as an expert. From what I understand, it isn't that difficult to get a judge to do so if the side against whom the expert will testify doesn't actively challenge their credibility. It's also quite rare for the alleged expert not to bring with them to court a CV which lists their qualifications, including citations to prior cases in which they have been qualified to serve as such. Therefore, I find it very odd that she could have backtracked on the number of times she has done so unless opposing counsel led her to think he might vet her claim to 20 times.

Want to know why Reade's lawyer withdrew his representation? You can bet it's the stuff above and that he may also have uncovered other reasons to think that in a court of law her credibility would be in great doubt. But don't be surprised if she gets someone else to represent her. There are plenty of underemployed attorneys out there who would take her case just for the free publicity it would bring.

I agree, there are questions. 

But Joe Biden should be held to the standard that Joe Biden set.  Believe Women.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 818SUDSFan said:

You mean like her claim that he did so? That holds little weight today: https://news.yahoo.com/biden-accusers-credentials-expert-testimony-230132449.html

I don't think getting slightly wrong her dates of employment with Biden's office means much. However, claiming under oath to have a college degree when the school says she didn't is a pretty big deal. And claiming under oath to have appeared as an expert witness in about 20 prior cases and later backtracking to say it was probably about half that is another big deal. FYI, expert witnesses differ from "percipient" witnesses in that they are allowed to give their opinion on an issue at bar. They aren't allowed to do that unless first "qualified" by the relevant judge to serve as an expert. From what I understand, it isn't that difficult to get a judge to do so if the side against whom the expert will testify doesn't actively challenge their credibility. It's also quite rare for the alleged expert not to bring with them to court a CV which lists their qualifications, including citations to prior cases in which they have been qualified to serve as such. Therefore, I find it very odd that she could have backtracked on the number of times she has done so unless opposing counsel led her to think he might vet her claim to 20 times.

Want to know why Reade's lawyer withdrew his representation? You can bet it's the stuff above and that he may also have uncovered other reasons to think that in a court of law her credibility would be in great doubt. But don't be surprised if she gets someone else to represent her. There are plenty of underemployed attorneys out there who would take her case just for the free publicity it would bring.

Kind of like Biden claiming he graduated at the top of his class when he was middle of the pack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...