THIS 1996 COURT DOCUMENT BOLSTERS RAPE CLAIM AGAINST BIDEN
Normally I'd be compelled to remind people that everyone deserves due process. But Joe Biden just this week reminded people that he doesn't believe in due process. So seriously, screw Joe Biden's due process. I'm not the one who made the rules. I'm just a comedy writer who moonlights in political snark. Who was told I hate women when I said the Brett Kavanaugh allegations looked like a political stunt.
The only question now: Does the DNC drag Biden across the finish line? Or is he just made to feel comfortable until nature takes its course?
That court document, filed by Reade's then-estranged husband in 1996, mentions only sexual harassment and not sexual assault. It does not provide any detail that might corroborate Reade's claim of sexual assault.
Asked for comment Thursday, the national press secretary for Bidenâs presidential campaign, T.J. Ducklo, said the campaign is not commenting on the latest development at this time.
However, the campaign did provide a comment from Ted Kaufman, who was Bidenâs chief of staff at the time. âI have consistently said what is the truth here â
that she never came to me,â Kaufman said. âI do not remember her, and
had she come to me in any of these circumstances, I would remember her.
But I do not, because she did not.â
THIS 1996 COURT DOCUMENT BOLSTERS RAPE CLAIM AGAINST BIDEN
Normally I'd be compelled to remind people that everyone deserves due process. But Joe Biden just this week reminded people that he doesn't believe in due process. So seriously, screw Joe Biden's due process. I'm not the one who made the rules. I'm just a comedy writer who moonlights in political snark. Who was told I hate women when I said the Brett Kavanaugh allegations looked like a political stunt.
The only question now: Does the DNC drag Biden across the finish line? Or is he just made to feel comfortable until nature takes its course?
If we were honest with ourselves this is true and sometimes the price is payed gladly with altruistic intentions for the greater good. This is why I have no issue at all with someone who votes for Biden and supports the metoo movement in regards to prioritizing the voice and concerns of women victims of sexual assaults or harassment. Just acknowledge that you are paying a price. After all, virtually all of us here have already chosen an alleged abuser of women in an election. I did it twice myself. Once in 1992 and again in 96.
In regards to the second remark, you are as naive as you are intelligent.
So we all have 3 choices: Trump, Biden, or neither. Let's agree neither hands your choice to others.
If you support #metoo, who do you pick? If you support the pro-life movement, who do you pick? If you support current gun laws, who do you pick? Lower taxation, lower regulation, the environment, immigration reform, and anything else that may be important to you, who do you pick?
Analyzing the limitations of your options is critical. You don't have to surrender your principals to vote...you have to prioritize them.
Personally I am holding true to exercising my right to vote as a protest to the 2 party duopoly meaning anybody but a D or an R. It has never been easier to maintain my tradition started back in aught 10. In other words, I am in the neither camp. As long as your reasoning is intellectually honest then you have the credibility to proceed with your choices and makes it easier for those that hold different opinions to work with you and of course that goes both ways.
If we were honest with ourselves this is true and sometimes the price is payed gladly with altruistic intentions for the greater good. This is why I have no issue at all with someone who votes for Biden and supports the metoo movement in regards to prioritizing the voice and concerns of women victims of sexual assaults or harassment. Just acknowledge that you are paying a price. After all, virtually all of us here have already chosen an alleged abuser of women in an election. I did it twice myself. Once in 1992 and again in 96.
In regards to the second remark, you are as naive as you are intelligent.
So we all have 3 choices: Trump, Biden, or neither. Let's agree neither hands your choice to others.
If you support #metoo, who do you pick? If you support the pro-life movement, who do you pick? If you support current gun laws, who do you pick? Lower taxation, lower regulation, the environment, immigration reform, and anything else that may be important to you, who do you pick?
Analyzing the limitations of your options is critical. You don't have to surrender your principals to vote...you have to prioritize them.
(...) but I agree with what Biden says above and have never wavered from this notion regardless of the political party of the accused. You should try it, there is no confusion.
Unless there's the threat of a socialist getting the Democratic nomination, in which case you'd feel compelled to vote (expediently) for the lesser evil alleged rapist (aka Trump)...
This is true, it would take something that dangerous, but that is about the only thing. Though sadly it looks like the pandemic has pushed us into socialism anyway. How ironic that we are destroying our grandchildren's hope by having them foot the tab for shutting the economy down and it is helping the environment which was the concern of our grandchildren as well. Seems like either way, we are screwing our descendants.
Just goes to show that almost everyone has a price (or a fear) that might make them put their principles on hold.
If you actually had socialism, workers would be prioritized (in any bailout scheme), not capital...
If we were honest with ourselves this is true and sometimes the price is payed gladly with altruistic intentions for the greater good. This is why I have no issue at all with someone who votes for Biden and supports the metoo movement in regards to prioritizing the voice and concerns of women victims of sexual assaults or harassment. Just acknowledge that you are paying a price. After all, virtually all of us here have already chosen an alleged abuser of women in an election. I did it twice myself. Once in 1992 and again in 96.
In regards to the second remark, you are as naive as you are intelligent.
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. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Also: SQUIRREL!
Nobody has to refute or disprove "Joe's creepiness". They might actually agree to some extent. However, your tremendous hypocrisy still stands as well.
Only being blind to your own tremendous hypocrisy, permits you to say that, while offering a straight face.
Obviously your personal mottto is 'Rules for thee, but not for me.'
And: SQUIRREL !
There ya go. I've been beaten up for using whataboutism here for years, by R and many, many others.
I always forgot to counter it in a timely way to neutralize it. Now I'm doing things a little differently now and it is fair game for using it. They use it, call em out if they ask for it. Doesn't mean that you can't use it, too. Now it's, so what ? Kinda like grammar police.
It's getting easier to do now because their over confidence is getting in their own way and their game is slipping as a result.
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. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Also: SQUIRREL!
Nobody has to refute or disprove "Joe's creepiness". They might actually agree to some extent. However, your tremendous hypocrisy still stands as well.
Hypocrisy?!? Oh dear me, no. It's not hypocrisy when someone is paying you to shill. KK's just doing his/her job.
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. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Also: SQUIRREL!
Nobody has to refute or disprove "Joe's creepiness". They might actually agree to some extent. However, your tremendous hypocrisy still stands as well.
Hypocrisy?!? Oh dear me, no. It's not hypocrisy when someone is paying you to shill. KK's just doing his/her job.
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. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Also: SQUIRREL!
Nobody has to refute or disprove "Joe's creepiness". They might actually agree to some extent. However, your tremendous hypocrisy still stands as well.
Only being blind to your own tremendous hypocrisy, permits you to say that, while offering a straight face.
Obviously your personal mottto is 'Rules for thee, but not for me.'
And: SQUIRREL !
You're projecting somewhat... Like Dear Leader usually does.
I assume that allegations of creepiness against Dear Leader don't concern you (nearly as much as they do for Biden).
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. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Also: SQUIRREL!
Nobody has to refute or disprove "Joe's creepiness". They might actually agree to some extent. However, your tremendous hypocrisy still stands as well.
Only being blind to your own tremendous hypocrisy, permits you to say that, while offering a straight face.
Obviously your personal mottto is 'Rules for thee, but not for me.'
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. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Also: SQUIRREL!
Nobody has to refute or disprove "Joe's creepiness". They might actually agree to some extent. However, your tremendous hypocrisy still stands as well.
Yeah...it's pretty creepy...but it's amusing to see the supporters of a guy with 25+ assaults, start a character debate. Creepy is saying...
"She's Got The Best Body" "Is she a Piece Of Ass?" "Yeah." "Perhaps I'd Be Dating Her" "Kiss her?... As Often As I Can" "She's Always Been Very Voluptuous"
and the all timer...
"If I Weren't, Ya Know, Her Father"
Do I need to tell you who said those things about his little girl?
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. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, âI didnât wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?
Yeah...it's pretty creepy...but it's amusing to see the supporters of a guy with 25+ assaults, start a character debate. Creepy is saying...
"She's Got The Best Body" "Is she a Piece Of Ass?" "Yeah." "Perhaps I'd Be Dating Her" "Kiss her?... As Often As I Can" "She's Always Been Very Voluptuous"
and the all timer...
"If I Weren't, Ya Know, Her Father"
Do I need to tell you who said those things about his little girl?
I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, âI didnât wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?
(...) but I agree with what Biden says above and have never wavered from this notion regardless of the political party of the accused. You should try it, there is no confusion.
Unless there's the threat of a socialist getting the Democratic nomination, in which case you'd feel compelled to vote (expediently) for the lesser evil alleged rapist (aka Trump)...
This is true, it would take something that dangerous, but that is about the only thing. Though sadly it looks like the pandemic has pushed us into socialism anyway. How ironic that we are destroying our grandchildren's hope by having them foot the tab for shutting the economy down and it is helping the environment which was the concern of our grandchildren as well. Seems like either way, we are screwing our descendants.
You should be far more worried about global warming than the coronavirus or public debt.
Still, hypocrisy aside, should we be worried about the effects of Covid-19 on debt? No.
Itâs true that weâre headed for some eye-popping numbers. Last week the Congressional Budget Office released preliminary economic and budget projections for the next two years, which were both shocking and unsurprising.
That is, the numbers were grim but more or less in line with what many independent economists have been predicting. In particular, the budget office expects the Covid-19 crisis to drive the unemployment rate to 16 percent in a few months, which might even be on the low side.
Soaring unemployment will cause federal revenues to plunge, and also lead to a surge in spending on safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, Medicaid and food stamps. Add in the large relief packages Congress has passed, and the budget office projects a deficit that will temporarily rise to levels we havenât seen since World War II, and it expects federal debt to rise to 108 percent from 79 percent of G.D.P., which sounds scary.
But the government will be able to borrow that money at incredibly low interest rates. In fact, real interest rates â rates on government bonds protected against inflation â are negative. So the burden of the additional debt as measured by the rise in federal interest payments will be negligible. And no, we donât have to worry about paying off the debt; we never will, and thatâs OK.
The bottom line is that right now, the only thing we have to fear from deficits is deficit fear itself. Pay no attention to the peacocks and vultures: In this time of pandemic, we can and should spend whatever it takes to limit the damage.
The link that's embedded in "we never will" in the excerpt above leads to a piece that gives good historical perspective and the big takeaway:
As long as nominal GDP growth is higher than the annual budget deficit, debt to GDP goes down, and spending more than you take in leaves you with a lower debt burden.
This is so simple, but itâs easily overlooked because it doesnât apply to people.
What matters for countries isnât the amount of debt they hold. Itâs how burdensome that debt is to maintain over time.
As long as your reasoning is intellectually honest then you have the credibility to proceed with your choices and makes it easier for those that hold different opinions to work with you and of course that goes both ways. 
