Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

You know who has talked publicly about the importance of taking women seriously? Biden. During the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Biden stood up for Dr Christine Blasey Ford, noting: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real."

Does this presumption not apply when the guy being accused is a Democrat running for president? It would seem that way. In January, according to reporting from the Intercept, Reade asked for help from the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which has supported accusers of high-profile people like Weinstein. Reade was reportedly told by the National Women's Law Center, the organization within which the Time's Up fund is housed, that it couldn't assist with accusations against a presidential candidate because it would jeopardize their non-profit status. The Intercept further notes that "the public relations firm that works on behalf of the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund is SKDKnickerbocker, whose managing director, Anita Dunn, is the top adviser to Biden's presidential campaign".

There are some people who will insist that drawing attention to the new allegations against Biden is playing into the Republicans' hands. That it will destroy Biden's campaign and guarantee us four more years of Trump.

---

The highlights above from your article seem to support the assertion that Democrats are hypocritical in their condemnation of Kavanaugh and silence on Biden

---

And they may be.

But the Kavanaugh hearing was the only news in town during that cycle.

Most politicians/political leaders are more pre-occupied with figuring out how to save lives in their states, at least the good ones, and many publications are throwing most of their best reporters into Covid-19 coverage. Biden's best strategy is not to rise to the bait and he hasn't. If Bernie thinks he really did it, he will latch on with those alligator jaws of his and not let go. Stay tuned.

I know how most men on this site view Christine Blasey Ford, but none of them have ever been 15-year-old girls who find themselves at a party they thought would be fun and cool with older boys who are drunk, out of control, contemptuous and mean and looking at them and talking about them like pieces of meat; plenty of women have that memory and the memory of how they made their escape (or didn't). I found her story totally believable, moreso because she was relunctant to come forward, but equally relunctant to say nothing and have a jerk like Kavanaugh end up on the court. Don't expect any of you to agree, and we've had this conversation before.

And the point wasn't to charge Kavanaugh with assault; it was to question whether he had the moral character to sit on the Supreme Court. Men cheered his tantrum and his contemtuous verbal abuse of the female senators on the panel, all of whom were Democrats. Women registered the fact that a mean drunk who viewed women in high school and college as resources to exploit and make fun of felt sickened that Kavanaugh would make decisions affecting women's rights in a variety of areas for years to come.

If the point of this woman's accusation is to end Biden's campaign, she might succeed. But it won't happen this week. The increase in diagnosed cases and deaths from the coronavirus takes precedence. I look forward to the time when debating this issue without much greater worries--people's lives, the economy, how long of a siege we're in for--looming. We didn't know how good we had it when the worst thing happening was that we learned too many of our political leaders / supreme court justices were scumbags who assault women off-camera, did we?

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Good grief the hurdles you are jumping through to keep Biden from facing any scrutiny.

There has been a good many women accuse him of some level of assault. Just look at the man, he can't keep his unwanted hands off people even in filmed public settings.

Amazing.

---

I'm a piker compared to the contortions evangelicals and other good Christians have engaged in to defend their support for Trump. You included. You'll excuse behavior from him you'd punch someone in the face for if he did it to someone in your family or said that in front of your mother.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Good grief the hurdles you are jumping through to keep Biden from facing any scrutiny.

There has been a good many women accuse him of some level of assault. Just look at the man, he can't keep his unwanted hands off people even in filmed public settings.

Amazing.

---

I'm a piker compared to the contortions evangelicals and other good Christians have engaged in to defend their support for Trump. You included. You'll excuse behavior from him you'd punch someone in the face for if he did it to someone in your family or said that in front of your mother.

---

Didn't vote for Trump, don't support him in any way. He is the President, I will not condemn any President. I never ran down Obama, or even Clinton as President, shoot I voted for Clinton though I came to realize he was a creep. I knew going in Trump was, that's why I didn't vote for him.

However, the hypocrisy, is where a Kavanaugh had his dignity dismantled for one accusation many years ago, one that was totally unverifiable. The media covered it non-stop, it was hashed and rehashed on here 24/7.

But, with Biden, a known creeper, he gets a pass, and not because Coronavirus, but because he gets the democrat pass.

It is unacceptable.

---

Talk about a creeper! And the predsident who nominated him--for whom he staged a tantrum and whom he verbally fellated at his Senate hearing, has done far worse:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump

Twenty years ago, Kavanaugh was an associate counsel for the independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating the president. Writing on 15 August 1998, two days before Clinton testified to a grand jury from the White House, he posed 10 suggested questions about the affair with Lewinsky, many of them sexually explicit.

Kavanaugh also said Clinton had "lied to his aides", "lied to the American people" and "disgraced the office" with a "sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush".

He was "strongly opposed to giving the president any 'break' in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship", he wrote, unless Clinton "resigns" or "confesses perjury".

He then suggested a list of questions. One was: "If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?"

Another: "If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated in her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?"

Kavanaugh also suggested asking Clinton "if Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?" and "If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"
Kavanaugh urged that it was the function of the independent counsel to "make [Clinton's] pattern of revolting behavior clear".

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Good grief the hurdles you are jumping through to keep Biden from facing any scrutiny.

There has been a good many women accuse him of some level of assault. Just look at the man, he can't keep his unwanted hands off people even in filmed public settings.

Amazing.

---

I'm a piker compared to the contortions evangelicals and other good Christians have engaged in to defend their support for Trump. You included. You'll excuse behavior from him you'd punch someone in the face for if he did it to someone in your family or said that in front of your mother.

---

Didn't vote for Trump, don't support him in any way. He is the President, I will not condemn any President. I never ran down Obama, or even Clinton as President, shoot I voted for Clinton though I came to realize he was a creep. I knew going in Trump was, that's why I didn't vote for him.

However, the hypocrisy, is where a Kavanaugh had his dignity dismantled for one accusation many years ago, one that was totally unverifiable. The media covered it non-stop, it was hashed and rehashed on here 24/7.

But, with Biden, a known creeper, he gets a pass, and not because Coronavirus, but because he gets the democrat pass.

It is unacceptable.

---

Talk about a creeper! And the predsident who nominated him--for whom he staged a tantrum and whom he verbally fellated at his Senate hearing, has done far worse:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump

Twenty years ago, Kavanaugh was an associate counsel for the independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating the president. Writing on 15 August 1998, two days before Clinton testified to a grand jury from the White House, he posed 10 suggested questions about the affair with Lewinsky, many of them sexually explicit.

Kavanaugh also said Clinton had "lied to his aides", "lied to the American people" and "disgraced the office" with a "sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush".

He was "strongly opposed to giving the president any 'break' in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship", he wrote, unless Clinton "resigns" or "confesses perjury".

He then suggested a list of questions. One was: "If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?"

Another: "If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated in her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?"

Kavanaugh also suggested asking Clinton "if Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?" and "If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"
Kavanaugh urged that it was the function of the independent counsel to "make [Clinton's] pattern of revolting behavior clear".

---

Total slander and unworthy of you

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Good grief the hurdles you are jumping through to keep Biden from facing any scrutiny.

There has been a good many women accuse him of some level of assault. Just look at the man, he can't keep his unwanted hands off people even in filmed public settings.

Amazing.

---

I'm a piker compared to the contortions evangelicals and other good Christians have engaged in to defend their support for Trump. You included. You'll excuse behavior from him you'd punch someone in the face for if he did it to someone in your family or said that in front of your mother.

---

Didn't vote for Trump, don't support him in any way. He is the President, I will not condemn any President. I never ran down Obama, or even Clinton as President, shoot I voted for Clinton though I came to realize he was a creep. I knew going in Trump was, that's why I didn't vote for him.

However, the hypocrisy, is where a Kavanaugh had his dignity dismantled for one accusation many years ago, one that was totally unverifiable. The media covered it non-stop, it was hashed and rehashed on here 24/7.

But, with Biden, a known creeper, he gets a pass, and not because Coronavirus, but because he gets the democrat pass.

It is unacceptable.

---

Talk about a creeper! And the predsident who nominated him--for whom he staged a tantrum and whom he verbally fellated at his Senate hearing, has done far worse:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump

Twenty years ago, Kavanaugh was an associate counsel for the independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating the president. Writing on 15 August 1998, two days before Clinton testified to a grand jury from the White House, he posed 10 suggested questions about the affair with Lewinsky, many of them sexually explicit.

Kavanaugh also said Clinton had "lied to his aides", "lied to the American people" and "disgraced the office" with a "sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush".

He was "strongly opposed to giving the president any 'break' in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship", he wrote, unless Clinton "resigns" or "confesses perjury".

He then suggested a list of questions. One was: "If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?"

Another: "If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated in her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?"

Kavanaugh also suggested asking Clinton "if Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?" and "If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"
Kavanaugh urged that it was the function of the independent counsel to "make [Clinton's] pattern of revolting behavior clear".

---

Total slander and unworthy of you

---

Where is the slander?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/brett-kavanaughs-adolescent-temper-tantrum-before-the-senate-judiciary-committee

love Kavanaugh's tone," Donald Trump, Jr., tweeted fifteen minutes into Brett Kavanaugh's opening statement in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was referring to the judge's wildly emotional performance, in which he alternated between shouting, as he blamed the Clintons and the Democrats for conspiring to torpedo his nomination to the Supreme Court, and weeping, as he spoke about the pain that he and his family have experienced in the weeks since accusations of sexual assault against him became public. Kavanaugh choked up and sobbed as he described his father's detailed calendars, which apparently inspired his own calendar-keeping practice; he seemed unable to gain control over himself, gasping and taking frequent sips of water.

The initial impression was of naked emotional vulnerability, but Kavanaugh was setting a tone. Embedded in the histrionics were the unmistakable notes of fury and bullying. Kavanaugh shouted over Dianne Feinstein to complain about the "outrage" of not being allowed to testify earlier; when asked about his drinking, by Sheldon Whitehouse, he replied, "I like beer. You like beer? What do you like to drink, Senator?" with a note of aggressive petulance that is hard to square with his preferred self-image of judicious impartiality and pious Sunday churchgoing. Lindsey Graham eagerly took up the angry-man mantle, using his allotted five minutes of questioning to furiously shout at his Democratic colleagues.

What we are seeing is a model of American conservative masculinity that has become popular in the past few years, one that is directly tied to the loutish, aggressive frat-boy persona that Kavanaugh is purportedly seeking to dissociate himself from. Gone are the days of a terse John Wayne-style stoicism. Now we have Trump, ranting and raving at his rallies; we have Alex Jones, whose habit of screaming and floridly weeping as he spouts his conspiracy theories is a key part of his appeal to his audience. When Kavanaugh is not crying or shouting, he uses a distinctly adolescent tone that might best be described as "talking back." He does not respond to senators. He negs them. His response, when he is asked about his drinking, is to flip the question and ask the senators how they like their alcohol; his refusal to say whether he would coperate with an F.B.I. investigation brings to mind a teen-ager stonewalling his parents.

If Kavanaugh is trying to convince the public that he could never have been capable, as a teen-ager, of aggression or peer pressure, this is an odd way to go about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-clinton-starr.html

The memo- shows tremendous respect for a sitting president, right?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/178-kavanaugh-clinton-monica-lewin/9b9a46ab055ee2458fd5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

In light of all ofthat, I suggest at least some questions along the following lines (I leave the best phrasing to others).
.....
IfMonica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Ofiice area, would she be lying?

IfMonica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?

IfMonica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?

IfMonica Lewinsky says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?

IfMonica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?

IfMonica Lewinsky says that on several occasions you had her give her oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom ofi"the Oval Office, would she be lying? I

fMonica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she by lying?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Good grief the hurdles you are jumping through to keep Biden from facing any scrutiny.

There has been a good many women accuse him of some level of assault. Just look at the man, he can't keep his unwanted hands off people even in filmed public settings.

Amazing.

---

I'm a piker compared to the contortions evangelicals and other good Christians have engaged in to defend their support for Trump. You included. You'll excuse behavior from him you'd punch someone in the face for if he did it to someone in your family or said that in front of your mother.

---

What jinx is doing is an old Soviet ploy called "Whataboutism".

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

The association of whataboutism with the Soviet Union began during the Cold War. As the regimes of Josef Stalin and his successors were criticized by the West for human rights atrocities, the Soviet propaganda machine would be ready with a comeback alleging atrocities of equal reprehensibility for which the West was guilty.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

Jack Bauer said:

---

So to summarize...

A thread about Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations of Joe Biden turns into a rambling incoherent rant about Bret Kavanaugh.

Jinx's complete COLDNESS to Ms Reade and gutless response to Joe Biden speaks volumes. If you support her policies, you can get away with anything. Purely pathetic.

---

Well, at the very least, that poster's clearly partisan hackish whataboutism should exclude anyone taking any post on any remotely related topic seriously. In fact, her posts should elicit little more than derision and mockery,

BearlySpeaking said:

---

It's not believable.

---

To you. It was entirely believable to me.

Most of what Trump says (including statements that climate change is a hoax and the statements he's been forced to walk back about the threat of the coronavirus and opening things back up by Easter) is not believable to me, but may be entirely believable to you. Even as evidence to the contrary piles up.

That's where we are as a society. We have what you find "believable," what I find "believable," and somewhere out there, hidden in plain sight, the objective truth. Right now, that objective truth is that the coronavirus is going to shut us down for a couple of months at least. We aren't going to be back in business or in church by Easter. Dallas is now shut down through May 20!

For the record, I think the Democrats made the wrong call in getting Ford to testify, given the personal cost to her (which should have been a greater consideration, IMO) and the polarizing result of her testimony (Republicans thought she assassinated the character of a good man; Democrats thought her testimony illuminated aspects of Kavanaugh's character, including the nasty temper and surly rudeness he displayed toward the women on the Senate judiciary committee, all Democrats, that disqualified Kavanaugh to sit on the highest court regardless of whether he was a mean drunk in high school and college). I think in the "Me Too" era, having allowed Kristin Gillebrand to heckle Al Franken out of office for charges that later literally proved to be trumped up, the Democrats felt they couldn't disregard Blasey-Ford's story.

And, I'm guessing, to most of those who thought Kavanaugh was an outstanding addition to SCOTUS, it's not believable.

I believed Anita Hill, too. And throwing a tantrum--and invoking the race card, as Thomas did when he called Hill's charges a "high tech lynching," worked for Thomas, too.

From my perspective, we have two men on SCOTUS whose behavior toward woman hasn't always been respectful. It's bad enough we elected a president with that trait. SCOTUS justices aren't elected; they're appointed. To me, Kavanaugh reflects the GOP's attitude toward women and that of lots of churches (including the Mormons who advised Rob Porter's wife to remain in an abusive marriage without complaint because "Rob has career ambitions"): We're supposed to put up and shut up. And the fact that not a single female senator was among the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee only underscores that view. Old white men are packing the courts. Including SCOTUS.

I understand that, if you are steeped in a culture where women in leadership is not a priority or is even prohibited--Catholicism, Mormonism, evangelical churches--that may not be a priority for you. For me, it's an essential element for our society's long-term survival.

What are your principles? There is an exponentially larger number of credible sexual assault/harassment claims, including some that came from his own mouth, against Donald Trump as there are against Biden.

You think somehow making a big fuss out of this one but still supporting Trump makes Jinx a hypocrite? Lol ok sure

Jinx 2 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

It's not believable.

---

To you. It was entirely believable to me.

Most of what Trump says (including statements that climate change is a hoax and the statements he's been forced to walk back about the threat of the coronavirus and opening things back up by Easter) is not believable to me, but may be entirely believable to you. Even as evidence to the contrary piles up.

That's where we are as a society. We have what you find "believable," what I find "believable," and somewhere out there, hidden in plain sight, the objective truth. Right now, that objective truth is that the coronavirus is going to shut us down for a couple of months at least. We aren't going to be back in business or in church by Easter. Dallas is now shut down through May 20!

For the record, I think the Democrats made the wrong call in getting Ford to testify, given the personal cost to her (which should have been a greater consideration, IMO) and the polarizing result of her testimony (Republicans thought she assassinated the character of a good man; Democrats thought her testimony illuminated aspects of Kavanaugh's character, including the nasty temper and surly rudeness he displayed toward the women on the Senate judiciary committee, all Democrats, that disqualified Kavanaugh to sit on the highest court regardless of whether he was a mean drunk in high school and college). I think in the "Me Too" era, having allowed Kristin Gillebrand to heckle Al Franken out of office for charges that later literally proved to be trumped up, the Democrats felt they couldn't disregard Blasey-Ford's story.

And, I'm guessing, to most of those who thought Kavanaugh was an outstanding addition to SCOTUS, it's not believable.

I believed Anita Hill, too. And throwing a tantrum--and invoking the race card, as Thomas did when he called Hill's charges a "high tech lynching," worked for Thomas, too.

From my perspective, we have two men on SCOTUS whose behavior toward woman hasn't always been respectful. It's bad enough we elected a president with that trait. SCOTUS justices aren't elected; they're appointed. To me, Kavanaugh reflects the GOP's attitude toward women and that of lots of churches (including the Mormons who advised Rob Porter's wife to remain in an abusive marriage without complaint because "Rob has career ambitions"): We're supposed to put up and shut up. And the fact that not a single female senator was among the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee only underscores that view. Old white men are packing the courts. Including SCOTUS.

I understand that, if you are steeped in a culture where women in leadership is not a priority or is even prohibited--Catholicism, Mormonism, evangelical churches--that may not be a priority for you. For me, it's an essential element for our society's long-term survival.

---

Of course it was totally believable to YOU... because you're a hypocrite suffering from TDS.

The reason Blasey-Ford wasn't believable is because she couldn't recall details with any sense of consistency. There was no evidence and not witnesses to support her claim. On the contrary, there were women who refuted her claim.You chose to believe her because you're being lead around by your political leaning and you can see the truth.

So you're saying that it's bad enough that have a president whose behavior toward women hasn't always been respectful....but you're going to vote for a candidate with the exact same behavior... okay, seems legit

Jinx 2 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

It's not believable.

---

To you. It was entirely believable to me.

Most of what Trump says (including statements that climate change is a hoax and the statements he's been forced to walk back about the threat of the coronavirus and opening things back up by Easter) is not believable to me, but may be entirely believable to you. Even as evidence to the contrary piles up.

That's where we are as a society. We have what you find "believable," what I find "believable," and somewhere out there, hidden in plain sight, the objective truth. Right now, that objective truth is that the coronavirus is going to shut us down for a couple of months at least. We aren't going to be back in business or in church by Easter. Dallas is now shut down through May 20!

For the record, I think the Democrats made the wrong call in getting Ford to testify, given the personal cost to her (which should have been a greater consideration, IMO) and the polarizing result of her testimony (Republicans thought she assassinated the character of a good man; Democrats thought her testimony illuminated aspects of Kavanaugh's character, including the nasty temper and surly rudeness he displayed toward the women on the Senate judiciary committee, all Democrats, that disqualified Kavanaugh to sit on the highest court regardless of whether he was a mean drunk in high school and college). I think in the "Me Too" era, having allowed Kristin Gillebrand to heckle Al Franken out of office for charges that later literally proved to be trumped up, the Democrats felt they couldn't disregard Blasey-Ford's story.

And, I'm guessing, to most of those who thought Kavanaugh was an outstanding addition to SCOTUS, it's not believable.

I believed Anita Hill, too. And throwing a tantrum--and invoking the race card, as Thomas did when he called Hill's charges a "high tech lynching," worked for Thomas, too.

From my perspective, we have two men on SCOTUS whose behavior toward woman hasn't always been respectful. It's bad enough we elected a president with that trait. SCOTUS justices aren't elected; they're appointed. To me, Kavanaugh reflects the GOP's attitude toward women and that of lots of churches (including the Mormons who advised Rob Porter's wife to remain in an abusive marriage without complaint because "Rob has career ambitions"): We're supposed to put up and shut up. And the fact that not a single female senator was among the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee only underscores that view. Old white men are packing the courts. Including SCOTUS.

I understand that, if you are steeped in a culture where women in leadership is not a priority or is even prohibited--Catholicism, Mormonism, evangelical churches--that may not be a priority for you. For me, it's an essential element for our society's long-term survival.

---

This isn't about Trump, Kavanaugh, or Thomas, this is about Joe Biden and his alleged assault of Tara Reade and the attention and justice that is due to her situation, from not only the Media but the #metoo movement.

They are either legitimate or they aren't, ignoring Reade shows they are not.

TL;DR

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

You know who has talked publicly about the importance of taking women seriously? Biden. During the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Biden stood up for Dr Christine Blasey Ford, noting: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real."

Does this presumption not apply when the guy being accused is a Democrat running for president? It would seem that way. In January, according to reporting from the Intercept, Reade asked for help from the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which has supported accusers of high-profile people like Weinstein. Reade was reportedly told by the National Women's Law Center, the organization within which the Time's Up fund is housed, that it couldn't assist with accusations against a presidential candidate because it would jeopardize their non-profit status. The Intercept further notes that "the public relations firm that works on behalf of the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund is SKDKnickerbocker, whose managing director, Anita Dunn, is the top adviser to Biden's presidential campaign".

There are some people who will insist that drawing attention to the new allegations against Biden is playing into the Republicans' hands. That it will destroy Biden's campaign and guarantee us four more years of Trump.

---

The highlights above from your article seem to support the assertion that Democrats are hypocritical in their condemnation of Kavanaugh and silence on Biden

---

Both sides are hypocritical on these issues because tribalism is the enemy of critical thought. And Jinx, unfortunately, is proving that on this thread.

What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, and that's never the case for either political party because the need/desire/impulse to defend one's tribe trumps objective truth. It makes for the type of tedious mental gymnastics and hypocrisy displayed on this thread (and most others on this board).

HuMcK said:

---

TL;DR

---

You really don't need to let the whole board what you've been doing during your quarantine. Just sayin'

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

You know who has talked publicly about the importance of taking women seriously? Biden. During the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Biden stood up for Dr Christine Blasey Ford, noting: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real."

Does this presumption not apply when the guy being accused is a Democrat running for president? It would seem that way. In January, according to reporting from the Intercept, Reade asked for help from the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which has supported accusers of high-profile people like Weinstein. Reade was reportedly told by the National Women's Law Center, the organization within which the Time's Up fund is housed, that it couldn't assist with accusations against a presidential candidate because it would jeopardize their non-profit status. The Intercept further notes that "the public relations firm that works on behalf of the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund is SKDKnickerbocker, whose managing director, Anita Dunn, is the top adviser to Biden's presidential campaign".

There are some people who will insist that drawing attention to the new allegations against Biden is playing into the Republicans' hands. That it will destroy Biden's campaign and guarantee us four more years of Trump.

---

The highlights above from your article seem to support the assertion that Democrats are hypocritical in their condemnation of Kavanaugh and silence on Biden

---

Both sides are hypocritical on these issues because tribalism is the enemy of critical thought. And Jinx, unfortunately, is proving that on this thread.

What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, and that's never the case for either political party because the need/desire/impulse to defend one's tribe trumps objective truth. It makes for the type of tedious mental gymnastics and hypocrisy displayed on this thread (and most others on this board).

---

Agreed

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

It's notVashti Bunyan believable.

---

To you. It was entirely believable to me.

Most of what Trump says (including statements that climate change is a hoax and the statements he's been forced to walk back about the threat of the coronavirus and opening things back up by Easter) is not believable to me, but may be entirely believable to you. Even as evidence to the contrary piles up.

That's where we are as a society. We have what you find "believable," what I find "believable," and somewhere out there, hidden in plain sight, the objective truth. Right now, that objective truth is that the coronavirus is going to shut us down for a couple of months at least. We aren't going to be back in business or in church by Easter. Dallas is now shut down through May 20!

For the record, I think the Democrats made the wrong call in getting Ford to testify, given the personal cost to her (which should have been a greater consideration, IMO) and the polarizing result of her testimony (Republicans thought she assassinated the character of a good man; Democrats thought her testimony illuminated aspects of Kavanaugh's character, including the nasty temper and surly rudeness he displayed toward the women on the Senate judiciary committee, all Democrats, that disqualified Kavanaugh to sit on the highest court regardless of whether he was a mean drunk in high school and college). I think in the "Me Too" era, having allowed Kristin Gillebrand to heckle Al Franken out of office for charges that later literally proved to be trumped up, the Democrats felt they couldn't disregard Blasey-Ford's story.

And, I'm guessing, to most of those who thought Kavanaugh was an outstanding addition to SCOTUS, it's not believable.

I believed Anita Hill, too. And throwing a tantrum--and invoking the race card, as Thomas did when he called Hill's charges a "high tech lynching," worked for Thomas, too.

From my perspective, we have two men on SCOTUS whose behavior toward woman hasn't always been respectful. It's bad enough we elected a president with that trait. SCOTUS justices aren't elected; they're appointed. To me, Kavanaugh reflects the GOP's attitude toward women and that of lots of churches (including the Mormons who advised Rob Porter's wife to remain in an abusive marriage without complaint because "Rob has career ambitions"): We're supposed to put up and shut up. And the fact that not a single female senator was among the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee only underscores that view. Old white men are packing the courts. Including SCOTUS.

I understand that, if you are steeped in a culture where women in leadership is not a priority or is even prohibited--Catholicism, Mormonism, evangelical churches--that may not be a priority for you. For me, it's an essential element for our society's long-term survival.

---

If a man defending himself against a false charge of rape is a "tantrum" and bad "behavior towards woman", what is it when a woman gets angry in court about having being raped? Do you think the Scottsboro boys were happy about their rape accusation? Is Biden allowed to be mad if this was a false accusation? Is Reade allowed to be upset as well about being raped if her accusation is true? That's a strange criterion by which to judge a person guilty.

It's not a matter of what you or I believe, it's a matter of evidence and what a reasonable person would believe. The concept of the viewpoint of a reasonable person is set in our laws, and is an implicit rejection of the relativization of "you believe" versus "I believe." If you find her credible, then you probably find the rape parties accusation believable that were brought forward by Avenatti's client.

The rest of your response about your judgement of Catholics, GOP, Republicans, Mormons, and Christians is off topic to the question of the judgment of Kavanaugh and Ford, and Reade and Biden.

---

So only the man's defense of himself is important. And not the allegations made by a woman.

Especially one whose politics don't agree with yours .

That totally explains how Trump got elected.

You jerk-ass guys either don't care who he assaults or has consensual sex with out of wedlock, or you actually admire him for it (the ethic during my double-standard era of the 1970s through the early 80s, when men were congratulated for their conquests while women lost their "reputations" and were branded as ****s and *****s by the likes of you fellas (for doing what you or one of your buddies wanted. For which they earned undying contempt, however much fun you had.)

I'm not apologizing for the level of disgust I hold for all of you who persist in defending this double-standard while acting as if it never existed. You earned it.

Jinx 2 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

It's notVashti Bunyan believable.

---

To you. It was entirely believable to me.

Most of what Trump says (including statements that climate change is a hoax and the statements he's been forced to walk back about the threat of the coronavirus and opening things back up by Easter) is not believable to me, but may be entirely believable to you. Even as evidence to the contrary piles up.

That's where we are as a society. We have what you find "believable," what I find "believable," and somewhere out there, hidden in plain sight, the objective truth. Right now, that objective truth is that the coronavirus is going to shut us down for a couple of months at least. We aren't going to be back in business or in church by Easter. Dallas is now shut down through May 20!

For the record, I think the Democrats made the wrong call in getting Ford to testify, given the personal cost to her (which should have been a greater consideration, IMO) and the polarizing result of her testimony (Republicans thought she assassinated the character of a good man; Democrats thought her testimony illuminated aspects of Kavanaugh's character, including the nasty temper and surly rudeness he displayed toward the women on the Senate judiciary committee, all Democrats, that disqualified Kavanaugh to sit on the highest court regardless of whether he was a mean drunk in high school and college). I think in the "Me Too" era, having allowed Kristin Gillebrand to heckle Al Franken out of office for charges that later literally proved to be trumped up, the Democrats felt they couldn't disregard Blasey-Ford's story.

And, I'm guessing, to most of those who thought Kavanaugh was an outstanding addition to SCOTUS, it's not believable.

I believed Anita Hill, too. And throwing a tantrum--and invoking the race card, as Thomas did when he called Hill's charges a "high tech lynching," worked for Thomas, too.

From my perspective, we have two men on SCOTUS whose behavior toward woman hasn't always been respectful. It's bad enough we elected a president with that trait. SCOTUS justices aren't elected; they're appointed. To me, Kavanaugh reflects the GOP's attitude toward women and that of lots of churches (including the Mormons who advised Rob Porter's wife to remain in an abusive marriage without complaint because "Rob has career ambitions"): We're supposed to put up and shut up. And the fact that not a single female senator was among the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee only underscores that view. Old white men are packing the courts. Including SCOTUS.

I understand that, if you are steeped in a culture where women in leadership is not a priority or is even prohibited--Catholicism, Mormonism, evangelical churches--that may not be a priority for you. For me, it's an essential element for our society's long-term survival.

---

If a man defending himself against a false charge of rape is a "tantrum" and bad "behavior towards woman", what is it when a woman gets angry in court about having being raped? Do you think the Scottsboro boys were happy about their rape accusation? Is Biden allowed to be mad if this was a false accusation? Is Reade allowed to be upset as well about being raped if her accusation is true? That's a strange criterion by which to judge a person guilty.

It's not a matter of what you or I believe, it's a matter of evidence and what a reasonable person would believe. The concept of the viewpoint of a reasonable person is set in our laws, and is an implicit rejection of the relativization of "you believe" versus "I believe." If you find her credible, then you probably find the rape parties accusation believable that were brought forward by Avenatti's client.

The rest of your response about your judgement of Catholics, GOP, Republicans, Mormons, and Christians is off topic to the question of the judgment of Kavanaugh and Ford, and Reade and Biden.

---

So only the man's defense of himself is important. And not the allegations made by a woman. Especially one whose politics don't agree with yours . That totally explains how Trump got elected. You guys either don't care who he assaults or has consensual sex with out of wedlock, or you actually admire him for it (the ethic during my double-standard era of the 1970s through the early 80s, when men were congratulated for their conquests while women lost their "reputations" and were branded as ****s and *****s by the likes of you fellas (for doing what you or one of your fellows wants). I'm not apologizing for the level of disgust I hold for all of you who persist in defending this double-stand. You earned it.

---

That's funny because you don't actually know who I voted for. When people have an intense hatred for a group of people, whether it's racial, sexual, political, or regional, they eventually reveal it in the bile they spew at people they think are a member of that group.

Your use of the words "****" and "*****" in reference to rape victims might indicate what you think about Reade, Are her allegations "important," or is only Biden's defense (which is been sparse) "important." Biden gets a free assault from you because your hate has blinded you to your hypocrisy.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

If a man defending himself against a false charge of rape is a "tantrum" and bad "behavior towards woman", what is it when a woman gets angry in court about having being raped? Do you think the Scottsboro boys were happy about their rape accusation? Is Biden allowed to be mad if this was a false accusation? Is Reade allowed to be upset as well about being raped if her accusation is true? That's a strange criterion by which to judge a person guilty.

It's not a matter of what you or I believe, it's a matter of evidence and what a reasonable person would believe. The concept of the viewpoint of a reasonable person is set in our laws, and is an implicit rejection of the relativization of "you believe" versus "I believe." If you find her credible, then you probably find the rape parties accusation believable that were brought forward by Avenatti's client.

The rest of your response about your judgement of Catholics, GOP, Republicans, Mormons, and Christians is off topic to the question of the judgment of Kavanaugh and Ford, and Reade and Biden.

---

So only the man's defense of himself is important. And not the allegations made by a woman. Especially one whose politics don't agree with yours . That totally explains how Trump got elected. You guys either don't care who he assaults or has consensual sex with out of wedlock, or you actually admire him for it (the ethic during my double-standard era of the 1970s through the early 80s, when men were congratulated for their conquests while women lost their "reputations" and were branded as ****s and *****s by the likes of you fellas (for doing what you or one of your fellows wants). I'm not apologizing for the level of disgust I hold for all of you who persist in defending this double-stand. You earned it.

---

That's funny because you don't actually know who I voted for. When people have an intense hatred for a group of people, whether it's racial, sexual, political, or regional, they eventually reveal it in the bile they spew at people they think are a member of that group.

Your use of the words "****" and "*****" in reference to rape victims might indicate what you think about Reade, Are her allegations "important," or is only Biden's defense (which is been sparse) "important." Biden gets a free assault from you because your hate has blinded you to your hypocrisy.

---

Nothing is funny about this discussion. Nor do I care who you voted for.

What I care about is the fire of the country. That, IMO, is less favorable with a man like Kavanaugh on SCOTUS. That's why Trump likes him.

Jinx 2 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

It's notVashti Bunyan believable.

---

To you. It was entirely believable to me.

Most of what Trump says (including statements that climate change is a hoax and the statements he's been forced to walk back about the threat of the coronavirus and opening things back up by Easter) is not believable to me, but may be entirely believable to you. Even as evidence to the contrary piles up.

That's where we are as a society. We have what you find "believable," what I find "believable," and somewhere out there, hidden in plain sight, the objective truth. Right now, that objective truth is that the coronavirus is going to shut us down for a couple of months at least. We aren't going to be back in business or in church by Easter. Dallas is now shut down through May 20!

For the record, I think the Democrats made the wrong call in getting Ford to testify, given the personal cost to her (which should have been a greater consideration, IMO) and the polarizing result of her testimony (Republicans thought she assassinated the character of a good man; Democrats thought her testimony illuminated aspects of Kavanaugh's character, including the nasty temper and surly rudeness he displayed toward the women on the Senate judiciary committee, all Democrats, that disqualified Kavanaugh to sit on the highest court regardless of whether he was a mean drunk in high school and college). I think in the "Me Too" era, having allowed Kristin Gillebrand to heckle Al Franken out of office for charges that later literally proved to be trumped up, the Democrats felt they couldn't disregard Blasey-Ford's story.

And, I'm guessing, to most of those who thought Kavanaugh was an outstanding addition to SCOTUS, it's not believable.

I believed Anita Hill, too. And throwing a tantrum--and invoking the race card, as Thomas did when he called Hill's charges a "high tech lynching," worked for Thomas, too.

From my perspective, we have two men on SCOTUS whose behavior toward woman hasn't always been respectful. It's bad enough we elected a president with that trait. SCOTUS justices aren't elected; they're appointed. To me, Kavanaugh reflects the GOP's attitude toward women and that of lots of churches (including the Mormons who advised Rob Porter's wife to remain in an abusive marriage without complaint because "Rob has career ambitions"): We're supposed to put up and shut up. And the fact that not a single female senator was among the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee only underscores that view. Old white men are packing the courts. Including SCOTUS.

I understand that, if you are steeped in a culture where women in leadership is not a priority or is even prohibited--Catholicism, Mormonism, evangelical churches--that may not be a priority for you. For me, it's an essential element for our society's long-term survival.

---

If a man defending himself against a false charge of rape is a "tantrum" and bad "behavior towards woman", what is it when a woman gets angry in court about having being raped? Do you think the Scottsboro boys were happy about their rape accusation? Is Biden allowed to be mad if this was a false accusation? Is Reade allowed to be upset as well about being raped if her accusation is true? That's a strange criterion by which to judge a person guilty.

It's not a matter of what you or I believe, it's a matter of evidence and what a reasonable person would believe. The concept of the viewpoint of a reasonable person is set in our laws, and is an implicit rejection of the relativization of "you believe" versus "I believe." If you find her credible, then you probably find the rape parties accusation believable that were brought forward by Avenatti's client.

The rest of your response about your judgement of Catholics, GOP, Republicans, Mormons, and Christians is off topic to the question of the judgment of Kavanaugh and Ford, and Reade and Biden.

---

So only the man's defense of himself is important. And not the allegations made by a woman.

Especially one whose politics don't agree with yours .

That totally explains how Trump got elected.

You jerk-ass guys either don't care who he assaults or has consensual sex with out of wedlock, or you actually admire him for it (the ethic during my double-standard era of the 1970s through the early 80s, when men were congratulated for their conquests while women lost their "reputations" and were branded as ****s and *****s by the likes of you fellas (for doing what you or one of your buddies wanted. For which they earned undying contempt, however much fun you had.)

I'm not apologizing for the level of disgust I hold for all of you who persist in defending this double-standard while acting as if it never existed. You earned it.

---

You are the one who has the double standard.

I chose no on Trump because I believed him poor morally, Crazy Joe is just as immoral, but you will vote for him.

You have the double standard. That is hypocrisy.

You call others Pigs, look in the mirror.