okaydo said:

---

---

The thing about a silent majority is that it has to be a majority.

The Mad King making fun of Hillary's health was begging for bad karma:

*Live by the sword, die by the sword. Leave it to Never tRump Republicans to be that vicious. Democrats can learn from them. In the words of Erlich Bachman on Silicon Valley: "Don't bring p@iss to a sh@it fight."

Silence

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Her own lawyer dumped her. Not promising

---

Some more on that:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tara-reade-dropped-as-client-by-douglas-wigdor-a-trump-friendly-metoo-lawyer

Looks like this might be happening because Reade is also now being investigated for lying about her credentials while serving as an expert witness in domestic abuse cases. There's also this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771

I still don't know if her claim is true or not. But I think if I were trying to build a case for it being true, I wouldn't want Reade as my key witness. There are a lot of incidents in the past where it seems like she lied about herself and/or tried to scam people.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

What's funny? You think anything I posted there was false?

---

---

Literally no response to the truth.

Not Me - Us said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Her own lawyer dumped her. Not promising

---

Some more on that:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tara-reade-dropped-as-client-by-douglas-wigdor-a-trump-friendly-metoo-lawyer

Looks like this might be happening because Reade is also now being investigated for lying about her credentials while serving as an expert witness in domestic abuse cases. There's also this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771

I still don't know if her claim is true or not. But I think if I were trying to build a case for it being true, I wouldn't want Reade as my key witness. There are a lot of incidents in the past where it seems like she lied about herself and/or tried to scam people.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

What's funny? You think anything I posted there was false?

---

---

Literally no response to the truth.

---

I didn't think this video was worth responding to, because it's not "truth" in any sense, it's motivated reasoning from a show that clearly wants to find any reason to take down Biden and "the establishment." But fine, if you want to get into it . . .

It's completely ludicrous to suggest that Tara Reade is being "silenced" or that finding other people to speak to the veracity of her claims or to her trustworthiness constitutes "shaming." Is some of the reporting biased in favor of Biden? Sure. There are an equal number of outlets who would be biased against him and are entirely willing to host Reade and allow her to tell her story unchallenged. Several of them have done it already. Her story has been national news. She's not being silenced at all. If I'm going to get a full picture of this story I would want to examine material from both kinds of sources. Your contention seems to be that I should only pay attention to the anti-Biden sources, and then you call it "the truth." As the snippy Rising hosts might say, "Psh!"

I would also add that this Rising segment doesn't address the latest issue with Reade, which is that she seems to have falsified her own credentials and then testified in court based on those credentials. Krystal Ball also engages in a real oversimplification of the Politico story, which is not just about "her landlord" having an issue with late rent payments, but of MULTIPLE people over several years who felt like Reade had conned them. Does any of that prove that Joe Biden did not assault her? No, it doesn't. But it's still fair game to investigate material that speaks to her trustworthiness, if Reade is also asking the country to take her at her word. Presenting additional facts and/or testimony is not "shaming."

sycasey said:

---

Not Me - Us said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Her own lawyer dumped her. Not promising

---

Some more on that:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tara-reade-dropped-as-client-by-douglas-wigdor-a-trump-friendly-metoo-lawyer

Looks like this might be happening because Reade is also now being investigated for lying about her credentials while serving as an expert witness in domestic abuse cases. There's also this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771

I still don't know if her claim is true or not. But I think if I were trying to build a case for it being true, I wouldn't want Reade as my key witness. There are a lot of incidents in the past where it seems like she lied about herself and/or tried to scam people.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

What's funny? You think anything I posted there was false?

---

---

Literally no response to the truth.

---

I didn't think this video was worth responding to, because it's not "truth" in any sense, it's motivated reasoning from a show that clearly wants to find any reason to take down Biden and "the establishment." But fine, if you want to get into it . . .

It's completely ludicrous to suggest that Tara Reade is being "silenced" or that finding other people to speak to the veracity of her claims or to her trustworthiness constitutes "shaming." Is some of the reporting biased in favor of Biden? Sure. There are an equal number of outlets who would be biased against him and are entirely willing to host Reade and allow her to tell her story unchallenged. Several of them have done it already. Her story has been national news. She's not being silenced at all. If I'm going to get a full picture of this story I would want to examine material from both kinds of sources. Your contention seems to be that I should only pay attention to the anti-Biden sources, and then you call it "the truth." As the snippy Rising hosts might say, "Psh!"

I would also add that this Rising segment doesn't address the latest issue with Reade, which is that she seems to have falsified her own credentials and then testified in court based on those credentials. Krystal Ball also engages in a real oversimplification of the Politico story, which is not just about "her landlord" having an issue with late rent payments, but of MULTIPLE people over several years who felt like Reade had conned them. Does any of that prove that Joe Biden did not assault her? No, it doesn't. But it's still fair game to investigate material that speaks to her trustworthiness, if Reade is also asking the country to take her at her word. Presenting additional facts and/or testimony is not "shaming."

---

Second verse, same as the first. That you don't see what you just said as more shaming while refusing to admit that your previous sources were aided and abetted by the Biden campaign just lays your hypocrisy that much more bare.

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Not Me - Us said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Her own lawyer dumped her. Not promising

---

Some more on that:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tara-reade-dropped-as-client-by-douglas-wigdor-a-trump-friendly-metoo-lawyer

Looks like this might be happening because Reade is also now being investigated for lying about her credentials while serving as an expert witness in domestic abuse cases. There's also this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771

I still don't know if her claim is true or not. But I think if I were trying to build a case for it being true, I wouldn't want Reade as my key witness. There are a lot of incidents in the past where it seems like she lied about herself and/or tried to scam people.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

What's funny? You think anything I posted there was false?

---

---

Literally no response to the truth.

---

I didn't think this video was worth responding to, because it's not "truth" in any sense, it's motivated reasoning from a show that clearly wants to find any reason to take down Biden and "the establishment." But fine, if you want to get into it . . .

It's completely ludicrous to suggest that Tara Reade is being "silenced" or that finding other people to speak to the veracity of her claims or to her trustworthiness constitutes "shaming." Is some of the reporting biased in favor of Biden? Sure. There are an equal number of outlets who would be biased against him and are entirely willing to host Reade and allow her to tell her story unchallenged. Several of them have done it already. Her story has been national news. She's not being silenced at all. If I'm going to get a full picture of this story I would want to examine material from both kinds of sources. Your contention seems to be that I should only pay attention to the anti-Biden sources, and then you call it "the truth." As the snippy Rising hosts might say, "Psh!"

I would also add that this Rising segment doesn't address the latest issue with Reade, which is that she seems to have falsified her own credentials and then testified in court based on those credentials. Krystal Ball also engages in a real oversimplification of the Politico story, which is not just about "her landlord" having an issue with late rent payments, but of MULTIPLE people over several years who felt like Reade had conned them. Does any of that prove that Joe Biden did not assault her? No, it doesn't. But it's still fair game to investigate material that speaks to her trustworthiness, if Reade is also asking the country to take her at her word. Presenting additional facts and/or testimony is not "shaming."

---

Second verse, same as the first. That you don't see what you just said as more shaming while refusing to admit that your previous sources were aided and abetted by the Biden campaign just lays your hypocrisy that much more bare.

---

No, I entirely accepted that they may have been abetted by the Biden campaign. I would not expect any less from any competent campaign. I would also expect the anti-Biden campaigns (be they right-wingers or far-left Bernie fans still upset about the primaries) to push their own narratives as much as possible. I want to discover, best as I can, the truth between those narratives.

You have just accepted one of them hook, line, and sinker, and then attempted to shame anyone who hasn't. You do you, but you're not convincing me or anyone else who doesn't already agree with you.

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Not Me - Us said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Her own lawyer dumped her. Not promising

---

Some more on that:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tara-reade-dropped-as-client-by-douglas-wigdor-a-trump-friendly-metoo-lawyer

Looks like this might be happening because Reade is also now being investigated for lying about her credentials while serving as an expert witness in domestic abuse cases. There's also this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771

I still don't know if her claim is true or not. But I think if I were trying to build a case for it being true, I wouldn't want Reade as my key witness. There are a lot of incidents in the past where it seems like she lied about herself and/or tried to scam people.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

What's funny? You think anything I posted there was false?

---

---

Literally no response to the truth.

---

I didn't think this video was worth responding to, because it's not "truth" in any sense, it's motivated reasoning from a show that clearly wants to find any reason to take down Biden and "the establishment." But fine, if you want to get into it . . .

It's completely ludicrous to suggest that Tara Reade is being "silenced" or that finding other people to speak to the veracity of her claims or to her trustworthiness constitutes "shaming." Is some of the reporting biased in favor of Biden? Sure. There are an equal number of outlets who would be biased against him and are entirely willing to host Reade and allow her to tell her story unchallenged. Several of them have done it already. Her story has been national news. She's not being silenced at all. If I'm going to get a full picture of this story I would want to examine material from both kinds of sources. Your contention seems to be that I should only pay attention to the anti-Biden sources, and then you call it "the truth." As the snippy Rising hosts might say, "Psh!"

I would also add that this Rising segment doesn't address the latest issue with Reade, which is that she seems to have falsified her own credentials and then testified in court based on those credentials. Krystal Ball also engages in a real oversimplification of the Politico story, which is not just about "her landlord" having an issue with late rent payments, but of MULTIPLE people over several years who felt like Reade had conned them. Does any of that prove that Joe Biden did not assault her? No, it doesn't. But it's still fair game to investigate material that speaks to her trustworthiness, if Reade is also asking the country to take her at her word. Presenting additional facts and/or testimony is not "shaming."

---

Second verse, same as the first. That you don't see what you just said as more shaming while refusing to admit that your previous sources were aided and abetted by the Biden campaign just lays your hypocrisy that much more bare.

---

No, I entirely accepted that they may have been abetted by the Biden campaign. I would not expect any less from any competent campaign. I would also expect the anti-Biden campaigns (be they right-wingers or far-left Bernie fans still upset about the primaries) to push their own narratives as much as possible. I want to discover, best as I can, the truth between those narratives.

You have just accepted one of them hook, line, and sinker, and then attempted to shame anyone who hasn't. You do you, but you're not convincing me or anyone else who doesn't already agree with you.

---

Your willingness to remain blind to truth slapping you in the face doesn't impress me or anyone else who isn't already leading a fat comfortable existence and thinks going back to 2015 is exactly what this country needs.

You know - back when kids were in cages and police were still brutalizing African Americans and your party was shown to have fixed their own primary. That's just fine with you.

Lucas Lee said:

---

You know - back when kids were in cages and police were still brutalizing African Americans and your party was shown to have fixed their own primary. That's just fine with you.

---

Any historical perusal of my positions on this board should demonstrate that I was not "fine" with those things, but you keep on making up your own positions to assign to other people. You're no different from GBear4Life in that regard.

The only thing I do disagree with is that the Democratic Party is competent enough to "fix" a primary. They are far too disorganized for that. The party leaders will show clear preferences, but there is no fixing of votes.

sycasey said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

You know - back when kids were in cages and police were still brutalizing African Americans and your party was shown to have fixed their own primary. That's just fine with you.

---

Any historical perusal of my positions on this board should demonstrate that I was not "fine" with those things, but you keep on making up your own positions to assign to other people. You're no different from GBear4Life in that regard.

The only thing I do disagree with is that the Democratic Party is competent enough to "fix" a primary. They are far too disorganized for that. The party leaders will show clear preferences, but there is no fixing of votes.

---

They are competent enough to fix it. Just not competent enough to destroy the evidence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/

None of this is news, of course.

This is your political position in 2020 in a nutshell.

Lucas Lee said:

---

This is your political position in 2020 in a nutshell.

---

We're done here. Just don't make any more claims that I never tried to engage with your arguments. I'm sure you will, given your history of making up your own versions of what I believe, but I just wanted to put that on the record.

sycasey said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

This is your political position in 2020 in a nutshell.

---

We're done here. Just don't make any more claims that I never tried to engage with your arguments. I'm sure you will, given your history of making up your own versions of what I believe, but I just wanted to put that on the record.

---

If you think what you were doing was a serious attempt to engage me, then I'll let your words speak for themselves. I don't particularly care about engaging with you if you're not going to take it seriously.

But as far as you demonstrating that you lack the humility to consider that you've ever been wrong about things the way that I've been willing to consider that I've been wrong about things? I don't mind you shining a bright light on that. Many people on this forum already know that about you.

sycasey said:

---

You have just accepted one of them hook, line, and sinker, and then attempted to shame anyone who hasn't. You do you, but you're not convincing me or anyone else who doesn't already agree with you.

---

There goes sycasey again. Twisting my words and telling me what I think. What he accuses everyone else of.

Cowardice masked as intellectualism.

bearister said:

---

---

I know the feeling, as you became my ***** once I pointed out how stupid all your memes were.

okaydo said:

---

---

This is how the Russians manipulated people last election and we have done absolutely nothing to prevent it. Putin must be laughing so hard at the briefings he is given.

dimitrig said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

This is how the Russians manipulated people last election and we have done absolutely nothing to prevent it. Putin must be laughing so hard at the briefings he is given.

---

Our fears have been weaponized.

By both parties.

There is some actual nefarious activity that goes on from Russia, but it's mostly conspiracy theories that we eat up without checking to see if it's actually true.

There are things that are theoretically possible, but there's no concrete proof they've happened yet.

It's important to make these distinctions so that we can separate verifiable fact from nonsense.

bearister said:

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

I know the feeling, as you became my ***** once I pointed out how stupid all your memes were.

---

...I knew I'd get to you eventually, junior.

---

Emotion is the enemy of logic. I got you to be emotional. Since I'm not emotional about you, I remain completely logical.

The favorite tactic of your average Off-Topic poster is by far:

Suck on this, tRump!

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump's effort to end legal protections for 650,000 young immigrants, a stunning rebuke to the president in the midst of his reelection campaign.

https://abc7news.com/politics/supreme-court-blocks-pres-trump-from-ending-daca/6253780/

okaydo said:

---

---

All of that guy's wives are so talented.