Does anyone else find this whole defense of creepy Joe by the activists weird as heck?
I mean, seriously. He's being accused of groping women. We have video footage, we have eye witness testimony, we have a pattern of behavior, we have a fumbling progression of attempts by Biden to respond. But that's ok because he's, what? A Democrat? Joe Biden? A possible presidential contender?
Does anyone on the left understand why this looks so bad on their attempts to demonize others for much, much less?
Is there anyone in that party anyone can find who can mount a presidential campaign which might have some semblance of reason, vision and/or decency? I don't need all three in order to consider you, two definitely. One would be nice. I can't stand the fact that we only have two parties and one has devolved to what we are currently watching.
https://www.salon.com/2019/04/01/joe-bi … fe-choice/
This is just another article from the liberal rag, Salon. But the article touches on my concern and that from those on the left as to how the Democrats can fail, in general, supporting centrists or GOP light types.
We are going to lose again by not putting enough light between our ideas and policies and those of Trump and the Republicans. We have to be about more than just being Anti-Trump.
That danger is there and the Republicans are counting on it to keep their Agent Orange" in office for another 4.
While I will support any Democrat over Trump, and the man is an affable fellow, Joe Biden's time has past as I need a more activist response to the challenges within our society, today.
Do you think your thought is representative of mainstream Democrats?
I agree with you, credence. Joe's time has passed. I have been impressed with Warren's rollout of more detailed policies addressing the issues she has been working on for years.
As for the OP, asking us to view a hair sniffer and shoulder rubber on the same level as a pu$$y grabber who admits to intentionally walking in on undressed underage girls is absurd.
I knew that I could count on you, Panther.
I like Warren as well and I have virtually begged her to stay away from controversial ideas like reparations for slavery and topics that are unpalatable in today's political climate.
But she and Sanders have identified and are directing their energies toward the real culprits in our society, and are not just another set of pretty faces.
Actually, I was referring to the ruination and attempt to ruin the career of quite a few people by the left for the#me too movement.
The hypocrisy is lost on you. Not surprised.
Really? Whose career was ruined for hair sniffing and shoulder rubbing?
Biden behaves inappropriately and needs to stop. Good enough for you? No, because you want to equate his behavior to.....what?
To what? How about accusations that have no proof, being accepted as gospel?
Look, I think had anyone given Biden the courtesy of telling him that behavior creeps them out he would have ceased and desisted. But, #me too requires no proof. Yet Biden, with loads of proof, gets a free pass.
I realize everything with you boils down to 'what about Trump' but not everyone has such tunnel vision where that is all they can see. I wasn't even thinking about Trump when I wrote the OP.
Of course you weren't. You already gave him that pass on his self-admitted sexual assaults yet you want us to think Biden is just as bad.
And, please tell me one person who was convicted without proof? Public opinion is just that, public opinion, not ruination. Look who's president.
I didn't give Trump a pass. I'm not the one screaming #me too. I just wish we could see consistency and not a blind eerie turned when it was convenient.
I said Biden behaved inappropriately and needs to stop. Is that not good enough for the level of offenses he has committed? What more do you want?
And, sorry, voting for a guy (for POTUS, no less!) who publicly admitted to sexually assaulting women and ogling underage girls in dressing rooms IS giving him a pass.
By your statements about Trump and Cavanaugh, you should not consider Biden fit for office either. Not honestly, anyway.
Biden doesn't currently hold office and I will not be voting for him. Since he recently held the office of Vice President for eight years and comported himself well enough that some of our allies have expressed their approval for a presidential bid on his part, I don't think it should disqualify him.
However, if Joe engages in this behavior even one more time after he clearly should know better, he is probably doomed.
As for what you think I should think, you are wrong. I don't believe hair sniffing and shoulder rubbing is equivalent to sexual assault, which rump admitted he does, or lying under oath as Kavanaugh clearly did.
I am not, nor have I ever been, in support of the#me too movement. Too many women lie, in my opinion.
As to Cavanaugh, I don't know that he lied but I'll bet had not Ford floated her bs and lies we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Credence, I finally took the time to read the Salon article and it is an excellent explanation of how Biden's behavior, while not rising to the level of sexual assault, is sexist and wrong. Like you said, his time has passed.
First of all, Panther
This line of discussion, comparing Biden to Trump is just so much BS.
Agent Orange, AKA, the Neanderthal in Chief was boasting and is unrepentant regarding his sexual exploits, sexist behaviors and values. Compared to him, Uncle Joe is a rank amateur.
The other point is that Joe is out of step in many ways, not just in regards to feminism and the expectations of women in the political arena, today
Additionally, the Republicans are going to find our "Achilles Heel" in Joe Biden, a candidate that would give Democrats the appearance of hypocrisy. This is an image that we can ill afford if we want to get Trump and his henchmen out of Washington.
I support the premise of the article, that we are better off sticking to our values and bringing out the base in larger numbers, than compromising them to the point where our platform is diluted to bilge water for the voters. It is foolishness to believe that Republicans are ever going to see things our way, so the few votes we might gain from a centrist course from the handful of "moderate Republicans" will turn off much more of the base as a more palatable so much of the same.
That is where the victories come, ask the Republicans. They cover Trump's rump regardless of his coarseness and the like. They don't hide the fact that they are operating on "Red Alert" all of the time, with any and all moderates as easy to find as your standard Passenger Pigeon.
I couldn't agree more. Times are changing and Biden represents the status quo.
Ha! I agree with your comment Cred. Let's go ice skating.
But I have a question, Do you think Biden is "out of step" with general American perceptions, or, with the current composition of the Democratic party?
I would go with the latter. Even though I am not a Democrat supporter, for the good of America I think he would be the best choice. I also think he would be an acceptable choice to non-Democrat anti-Trump voters, (aka Independents).
Further, I think he would be an acceptable candidate for all but the far-left Democrat voters if their choice was any but a far-left candidate.
However, I am not sure he could get a fair shake from the DNC, which I think will be driven by the far-left candidates.
My first thought is, that with the coming disaster of the Democrat's actions relative to the tax return and full Mueller report thing, Biden may be the only candidate that has a chance of beating Trump.
I truly think the Democrats are going to piss off a major Independent voter segment with their coming "investigative" antics. It is an obvious agenda, and one I think only the far-left will see as legitimately acceptable.
I will repeat a previous sentiment. I was not a Trump voter, but if the Dems pursue the track I see coming with the report and tax return themes, they may drive me to be an anybody-but-a-democrat Trump voter. And that would really piss me off.
Your perspective on the tax returns and Mueller report runs counter to the majority of Americans, GA. It is not just the far left who is on board with the Democrats, as of now, anyway.
That may be true PrettyPanther, or it may not. I am not just speaking of the drive to have those documents released, I am talking about the path I think the Democrats will take once they are.
My opinion is that they will pursue an agenda of embarrassment as much, (or maybe more), than one of uncovering illegalities.
Considering the criminality has already been established (campaign finance felony, use of foundation funds on the campaign), finding out how much more there is seems more than pertinent.
This puzzles me. I honestly don't see how any person, Democrat or otherwise, could embarrass Trump any more than he has embarrassed himself. What could they possibly do that is worse than his own words and behavior, both before he was elected and now as president?
Maybe embarrass wasn't a good word choice. My thought was that their agenda will be to find more things to club the president with, whether they are illegalities or not.
Collusion failed, obstruction seems at best iffy and at worst another failure, campaign finance violation seems to be, at this point, an opinion toss-up, so it's off to the available possible treasure chests to see what else might be found.
We will soon see the intent, impact, and repercussions of what they do with these documents.
Do you see the Democrats' possible future actions as worse than, say, the Republicans' seven investigations of Benghazi?
Come on PrettyPanther, Your response is Whataboutism?
What does Benghazi have to do with this if not as a tit-for-tat, or they-did-it-too defense? When you see me defending similar Republican actions you can come back and hang this one around my neck.
Until then, my comments have nothing to do with the Republicans - neither for or against.
Yes, it is whataboutism, because you are a self-described adherent to neither Democrats nor Republicans, right? And you said this:
"I will repeat a previous sentiment. I was not a Trump voter, but if the Dems pursue the track I see coming with the report and tax return themes, they may drive me to be an anybody-but-a-democrat Trump voter. And that would really piss me off."
Since you describe yourself as independent, I am genuinely curious how your perceived future behavior of Congressional Democrats would be worse than previous actual behavior by Congressional Republicans? So much so that it would drive you to vote for Trump, who you say you don't like?
That was why I asked the question.
And, while I'm here. I'm also curious why bad behavior by members of Congress would be used as a criteria for electing a president unless, of course, a presidential candidate is himself or herself one of those congressional bad actors.
I'm just curious, not trying to argue, though you did say you need more liberals to argue with. ;-)
It was apparent in the last election that a Democratic candidate is not chosen by vote of the people, but by party VIP's making the decision. Any democratic candidate is thus a reflection on what those VIP's and the party are and how they behave.
Which is certainly an important criteria for voting.
I can always count on you to parrot the GOP line.
They're waiting for, and then copying, my posts.
Didn't know that it was a big thing, though. From my perspective it has been kept pretty quiet, considering the depth of betrayal it revealed - I presumed it was because the GOP had done the same in the past and perhaps even tried and failed when Trump ran.
Yes, the establishment might have their favorites but after the last election, with Trump and Bernie as insurgent candidates, they would be truly stupid to try to force the status quo down the throats of voters.
I would have to say that not only is that true, but that the DNC was truly stupid to force Clinton down the throats of voters. It didn't work, and one has to wonder just how many Democratic voters were lost, perhaps forever, as a result of that incredible duplicity and betrayal. To fix an election and simply move on as if it were common, normal event was not bright.
I know I will think twice before choosing ANY Democratic candidate, for any position, as a result of that action. The reasoning and arrogance behind it is inexcusable - it makes Russian interference look like kindergartners playing in the sandbox.
The election wasn't fixed. Clinton and the DNC did nothing illegal, which is your own stated standard of misconduct. I don't like that the DNC had a "favorite" but I have no doubt that the RNC does too..
Russia releasing the e-mails to cause division among the Democrats and favor Trump certainly was one factor in his election. Clinton would have been effective because, unlike Trump, she has a history of working across the aisle. Trump is horribly partisan and the rhetoric he, and people like Pirro, Carlson, and Hannity spew is dangerous to many in America. Say what you will about Clinton, but she was never a danger to any American.
Opinions vary. Clinton was the biggest danger to the entire nation we've seen in many, may years. Trump is but a firecracker compared to her nuclear bomb in that respect.
Not just her socialist policies - that was bad enough - but her misuse of political power and the insistence she was above the law. All presidents have skirted the law, but Clinton...Clinton views anything she does as OK because the law simply does not apply to her majesty.
I agree with you on her view that she believed she was above the law. Even as a leftist, that is one description I feel is accurate.
But Trump is much worse. He literally asks members of his cabinet to break the laws of this country and needs to be informed that his requests would be illegal. It's literally why Sally Yates was fired, Nielsen, and Tillerson were removed for similar reasons.
And yet...we have incontrovertible FBI evidence of Clinton's illegal activity and nothing is done. After years of effort we can find no illegal activity from Trump.
But Trump is much worse. I trust you see how foolish that sounds.
What we have, is a similar situation of conduct done by Clinton that was done by George Bush who deleted 22 million e-mails on a private server housed at the Republican National Committee offices. One that many of his cabinet members were using as we declared a war in Iraq.
What we also have is some severe partisan outrage where people like you want severe penalties for someone of the opposite party when someone of their own party got none, even though their transgression was much, much, much more significant.
Why the two different standards? Is it your desire to act like a fascist?
Illegal? Apparently not.
But did you know that your vote in the primaries didn't count - that the winner was chosen by the party without need for a vote? Because I surely didn't - I have thought for 50 years that the primaries were as much an honest election as the actual presidential race.
Since you asked nicely...
Claiming they might drive me to be a Trump voter was a bit over the top, but they may surely drive me to be an anybody-but-a-democrat voter.
It is not an impossibility that I might vote for Biden if he was the non-Trump choice, but if the Democrats pursue the course I am expecting them to with the coming Mueller report/expanded summary, and the tax returns, then my vote would be a write-in protest vote. I did a write-in choice last election, but it wasn't a protest-driven vote. This one could be.
Regarding the difference between past Republican actions, my first thoughts are that I can't recall any specific incidence when the effort didn't at least have the veneer of being topical issue related, even if the goal was just to "get" the person in question.
There is no veneer to the Democrat efforts to get Pres. Trump. When one reason, (excuse) fails, they just claim another. It is hate-driven, and it is a party effort, so my anger is directed at the party.
'I will repeat a previous sentiment. I was not a Trump voter, but if the Dems pursue the track I see coming with the report and tax return themes, they may drive me to be an anybody-but-a-democrat Trump voter. And that would really piss me off.'
Why would you be against transparency? Don't you want to know the information found in the report or the motivations behind some of Trump's actions due to his finances?
If Biden gets past his touchiness, he would be a centrist candidate that many in the Democratic party are looking for. Yes, there are many options, that are pushing healthcare-for-all, that could get the nomination and would give many independents pause if the party went that far left.
But there are a good portion of Americans in both parties looking to end the chaos, crassness, and corruption seen within this presidency. Any honest, moderate candidate will crush Trump as evidenced by the midterm vote swings in keys states.
I am not against transparency Valeant, although our idea of what that entails may differ. I am against what I think will be the Democratic actions once those documents are released.
Your closing paragraph, with the addition of the Democrats--regarding the chaos, crassness, and corruption--is the essence of my original point.
GA, I would probably answer you, 'the latter'. Conservatives are traditionalists if nothing else and as I mentioned before, the idea of a female president may well be beyond their comfort zone although they cannot admit that in the public forum.
The Democrats have moved leftward as the GOP has staked its claim ever further to the right. While a candidate like Biden may well have been acceptable just a decade ago, not now. Donald Trump and his entourage along with ruthlessness of the Right in association with Trump has changed the game for all of us.
What gets me is that conservatives always want the Democrats to select a centrist candidate while the Republicans exist comfortably at the extremes of right wing politics and nothing is ever said about it.
While, I am not interested in Molotov cocktails, socialism and all that, the status quo is unacceptable in my mind and needs to move more firmly and forcefully in a progressive direction. I don't see an accomodationalist like Joe Biden giving me what I need in regards to the direction of the party.
I don't know if it is far left more than just the caustic nature of partisan politics today. This is not different than the Republicans with their "replace and repeal Obamacare", they were not as keen on replacing as they were interested in repealing. They all voted along their party line, lock step.
I don't like Trump and I won't hide it. But, I do not support partisan witch hunts just for their own sake. I did say the if Trump was exonerated by Mueller, we should back off.
There is no law that requires Trump to submit his tax returns, so House Democrats have no legal basis to pursue it, regardless of the fact that it appears that the President is hiding something.
Backing off does not mean that Trump should be considered immune to any further investigations, IF LEGALLY WARRANTED.
Biden is not Trump, but as a Democrat, I want substantive change. Business as Usual won't do. There is more to it than just not liking Trump, it is a profound distrust with the GOP, the general course of conservative thought and politics in the Age of Trump, etc, and the direction as to where they take the country.
Trump supporters are fanatics, and if we don't have our own sources of fanaticism outside of "Not Trump or GOP light", why should the electorate not choose the genuine article with Donald Trump and the Republicans?
I will take my chances and "stay true to my school" and stoke our constituencies to be inspired and excited to participate in large enough numbers to overwhelm Republicans, moderate or otherwise.
I'd like to address your comment that a female president would be outside the comfort zone of conservatives. I think that is untrue.
I think one binding factor for many is that we want someone who would represent the people, across the board. That was one strike against Hillary. 'I'm a woman, I'm a woman. Vote for me. I'm a woman.' Appeared to be her mantra to get the female vote, 'If you don't vote for me, you can't think independently. Men control you.' was her threat and unforgivable insult.
If you identify as some form of segment of society, repeatedly shove that in the faces of the voters, you set yourself apart and create the aura of putting that above the more unifying characteristic of being an American citizen, qualified to represent all.
There have been plenty of women I'd vote for. One has run, others haven't.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Obama appealed across party lines during the election process because he represented himself as a man who happened to be black, not a black man, when he first ran for president.
Do you honestly believe Trump represents anything other than his base?
Argh. For the thousandth time. I'm not responsible for the two choices presented. Give us two jerks as our only viable options and we'll get a jerk in the end.
My question pertains to present tense. I know why people voted for Trump. What confounds me, is knowing what we now know about his corruption, dishonesty, and openly hostile rhetoric to anyone not behind him, how any reasonable American can still stand behind him.
We are stuck with the duly elected president, for the term of his presidency. I respect the office and, quite frankly, consider a lot of the complaints to be sour grapes. I also found the constant nit picking during Obama's presidency pointless and craftily designed to redirect our interest away from their inability to compromise and effectively govern.
Trump is a jack a**. Hillary is a lying, greedy for power jerk. Pelosi is senile. AOC is a dim witted social media phenom. Biden is a creepy, probable pedophile. I could find a true/feasibly true negative statement about everyone in the political arena.
You do realize that, collectively, they are no different from the rest of us. They have flaws. Those currently in power could accept that reality, about each other, and attempt to govern effectively. Instead of cat fighting and dragging everyone down with them.
I also think a woman president would be acceptable to most American voters.
It appears that you think a Centrist or Moderate candidate is beyond consideration - regardless of which party they belong to.
That sounds like saying Middle America is just along for the ride, whether Left or Right, you only see a radical candidate as an acceptable choice.
There are probably polls out there that have asked that question--without a party affiliation qualifier--that could shed some light on that perspective. I think you are wrong. I think the right Centrist or Moderate candidate could carry the vote - if they could get their party's support. An unlikely if.
Whoopi and Joy Behar of the View were "Pissed Off" by Joe Biden's Accuser. "He's a Toucher, That's What He's Like!". I bet Whoopi, Joy, and the mouth breathing clapping seals that watch the View are probably okay with this too. Because. You know. "He's a Toucher"...
Would you let Joe touch your kids?
I wouldn't let that man within arm's reach of my kid. He's weird and creepy.
What ticks me off is some crazy looking and crazy sounding woman made an accusation against Cavanaugh. With no proof, no corroborating evidence and plenty of room for doubt, the left (including at least one person in this thread) declared him guilty and unfit to sit on the bench.
But, tons of video evidence of Biden inappropriately touching is somehow ok and he's qualified to be president. It's bizarre how some can't see why so many have a hard time taking democrats seriously.
"What ticks me off is some crazy looking and crazy sounding woman made an accusation against Cavanaugh. With no proof, no corroborating evidence and plenty of room for doubt, the left ......declared him guilty and unfit to sit on the bench."
Yep. The left sought to destroy Cavanaugh over an entirely uncorroborated accusation; it was incredibly evil.
If you two are going to worry over a man who is now sitting permanently on the Supreme Court after lying under oath, at least spell.his name right: Kavanaugh.
Okay, will do.
I'm not so much worried over a man who's now sitting on the Supreme Court as I am for others who will be subject to the same evil treatment he received, or worse.
Yeah, that was some evil treatment, handing him that lifetime appointment. He and Clarence should get along nicely, though.
They attempted to destroy him, and for no reason other than they knew that his appointment would tilt the court to the right (ever so slightly).
Yeah, I know, poor poor men have to face their accusers before getting exactly what they wanted anyway. The horror!
The display with Kavanaugh at the center had nothing to do with facing his accuser, and everything to do with ruining him.
I doubt there was any direct effort to ruin Kavanaugh, at least as a primary goal.
Rather it was to prevent an honest judge from sitting on the SCOTUS, in favor of one that would rule according to left ideology.
They didn't care what it took to prevent an honest judge from sitting on the SCOTUS - at that point, the only way they could prevent it was by smearing him.
An honest judge? You must be kidding. He lied at least twice to Congress, once about boofing and the other about the definition of "Devil's Triangle". I mean, if you're willing to accept those answers as truthful, then you're willing to accept and overlook anything.
Notice how reason,fair play and the adherence to the principles of the rule of law take a back seat to hatred and vitriol?
I fear for the left. I fear the left. I can't put my finger on the primary reason for their madness.
Hello! Do you think this has just come to light about Biden? Back when he was VP Infowars showed tons of videos of Biden creepily groping women and children but the media ignored it.
The only reason it's news now is because the Democrats are doing to him what Hiliary did to Bernie when he ran against her. It's the Democrats that have brought this into the media now. The Looney left factors of the Democratic party are at work here, as could be predicted, eating their own!
Besides this perverted smelling and kissing hair behavior Biden has been revealed (actually bragging about it) to have used his position when he was VP to interfere in the Ukraine's judicial system to keep his son from being investigated!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnew … ficial.amp
You can "kiss" creepy, slimey uncle Joe goodbye, and wonder why Obama praised him as the best VP ever.
Hypocritical of Republicans to attack Biden with Trump in office?
Then again, Democrats supported Clinton and continue to defend him.
You know what this says? Very few people really care about sexual assault or are willing to stand up for it. Very few. And politics matters more than morality.
Why not take this beyond politics and ask why people are willing to overlook habitual lying, sexual assault, and all manner of disgusting behavior when it comes to their political candidate?
As an aside, I was at a poker game with my liberal friends and Biden was attacked there, not defended. It was a universal "get lost" attitude. And go back and look at his attack on Anita Hill.
On behalf of all Democrats: Get lost, Joe.
Hey, It's "good old uncle Joe". Come on give him some slack. LOL Just think if it were a Republican that was being accused of fondling, smelling hair, and long hugs. Need I say any more? Hopefully, the Dems just keep up their antics and continue with their skewed bias hypocritical ideals. It just makes it very clear they have nothing to offer the people of America.
Says somebody who voted for President Pu**ygrabber. How's that hypocrisy pie taste?
"Hypocrisy"? I think my statement is very clear. My opinion is just as stated. It is very clear that many that lean left is giving Biden a pass, left-wing media included. In regards to the Billy Bush Tape, and the president's crude statement, the tape was released Oct 7, 2016, before the election. I was well aware of the comment, I voted for Trump with full knowledge of his past. I do and never have sought to make any form of excuse for the President's personality or how he chooses to communicate verbally or on social media. In this respect, I show no attributes of being a hypocrite. My beliefs were stated very clearly in my comment.
Hypocrite - "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"
I would rather see the Democratic party get a handle on this insanity and get back to the business of offering alternative, intelligent, views. A one party system serves no one.
Last time I looked we still have a two party system. I respect you have a different view than me. Although, In my own opinion the path the Dems have seemed to adopt is very destructive to the ideals America was founded under and grown to be the nation it is. Presently they offering perhaps alternative views, but intelligent views, I have to question that.
My comment was just pointing out is what I see as a flaw in their logic. I could very well be wrong, but I do believe if it were a Republican official that was being accused of the same type of let's call it strange gestures that Biden was accused of he would be condemned as a pervert. Uncle Joe was given a break. Again just my opinion.
With all due respect. Sexual harassment exists on both sides of the isle. Donald Trump has mocked, insulted and denigrated woman numerous times. He treats woman like sex objects.
Whose breasts did Biden grab?
Move those hands down and change to "Trump" and you'll be accurate.
So you correctly point out there is no proof Biden grabbed anyone's breast and then you make a worse false accusation about Trump with no proof, that's liberal logic!
No proof? Straight from the ass's, er, horse's mouth:
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
More proof that nothing matters in politics to anyone.
Trump was right about one thing - he could shoot somebody in broad daylight and none of his supporters would care.
And Clinton could convince an intern to blow him and none of his supporters would care and, in fact, would go out of their way to vilify the intern.
I don't know anything about Trump's supposed transgressions. I did hear that disgusting locker room style statement. That shows he's a cad. I haven't heard of any woman claiming that he actually did this; so, thus far he's a cad. I knew a guy once who claimed we'd done some stuff. Didn't make it true. It made him an ass who wanted to appear to have more sexual prowess than he actually possessed.
The Stormy Daniels thing didn't bother me. She was a paid prostitute, Not someone who was sexually assaulted or taken advantage of. So, that makes him a sad excuse for a husband.
I think my problem is many hate Trump so much that they attempt to equate being an a**hole with being a sexual predator. I also have to look at allegations, individually, to determine my opinion. I will say that woman who actively use sex appeal in an attempt to gain advantage, who don't immediately express disgust with a particular situation and who don't also immediately call it out can appear more like they are just upset their actions didn't yield the hoped for gain.
If Trump ever shot someone in broad daylight with no evidence of self defense; I can't imagine any sensible person attempting to justify his behavior. Believing such is indicative of a lack of respect for those with opposing opinions. Although, I have seen people on the left actively defending violence so maybe you are right and such ignorance goes both ways.
Here are all of the allegations — in chronological order — made by 23 named women
Of course, I have little doubt you'll see twenty-three lying women versus one honest man.
A man who would pay a porn star to have sex, talk approvingly of taking advantage of women and grabbing their genitals, cheat on his wife, have sexual relations with an intern, walk in on women while they are changing because he can, consistently touch women without their consent - none of these men are qualified or should be President. And people with self-respect and any moral compass should not support or vote for them.
And when they are running against candidates equally unqualified.....your advice is?
Are you referring to a recent election where the candidates were equally unqualified? I don't recall one where the candidates were equally unqualified. And what qualifications do you expect your candidates to have?
Who did Hillary Clinton cheat on? Who named her in a sexual assault allegation? By equal, you must be joking.
Poor Biden. Probably the best candidate the democrats could've had. I hope he runs anyway.
... what was okay then, is suddenly not okay, now.
He can change.
Its not like he will continue his (now) wayward and rampant touchy-feelies.
It wasn't ok then and its not ok now. The best I can think of the man is that women tend to smile and laugh instead of firmly saying 'get the heck away from me'. If you don't speak up an offender doesn't necessarily know they are offensive.
But, the man had to have seen the same video footage we have. If he can't recognize creepy when he sees it he's got a problem.
Plus, the fascist left has done everything possible to ensure we declare every man possible as a predator, whether there is evidence or not. We have evidence, we know the perpetrator, we see the left ignoring all of their criteria for condemnation. I am curious how they expect to maintain credibility for their faux outrage with their next victim.
As someone likely to vote Dem for President in 2020, and a twice-over Obama voter, I think the Dems are losing it. Making every old guy that ever made a woman uncomfortable a predator is insane. Both the left and the right are off balance IMO. The left's overly PC attitude is becoming so bad that I don't think it's PC anymore, lol.
Spot on. This new "standard" will allow for anyone seeking office or currently in office to be subject to scrutiny for accusations by women that have been made to feel uncomfortable by someone who was, like Biden, touchy feeley.
NO - I'm not saying that sexual assault or sexual intimidation of any kind be ignored. I'm saying, in agreement with you hard sun, exactly what I said in the first paragraph!
It appears that one difference in thought is that some have no problem with American citizens hijacking and making a mockery of the democratic process and simultaneously over-worrying about attempted meddling (turning a blind eye to the sure fact that such behavior is going on within all governments, including our own). While others understand the grave difference between an attempt by a foreign entity to meddle in and the act of a domestic entity to hijack an election; and know that the former is the reality of the world we live in while the later threatens the very sanctity of our democratic process.
This speaks to the point I made earlier. Where are our collective, consistent ethics and morals?
We all seem to support our side no matter how they behave.
No. No. No. The problem is the system has devolved. The left cannot accept the reasons people felt it necessary to reject Hillary. What the left has done is go off the far left end in response.
Come back to the light. Give us a candidate who reflects a moderate Democrat with ethics and you will have a chance to defeatTrump. If the left keeps whining, yeh what abouting everything, slinging mud along with poop and backing far left ideas, demonizing anyone who isn't far left, they will cripple the party.
Well, it worked for the right, so I guess the liberals are just using that playbook.
Btw, I basically agree with your assessment of what the Dems need to do (if not your logic), but finding a clean candidate in politics isn't that easy, it would seem, and no matter who the Dems nominate, the alt-Right will invent stories and flood us with fake news that people will believe, just like they believed PizzaGate and all the other crap.
Sure. But why? That's just rhetoric from some that want to justify their actions. No matter who is the DEM candidate, they will vote for Trump. Some already said that.
Yes. Fake news. Great fallback. Especially considering the fact that you appear to swallow lock, stock and barrel any questionable news that supports your theories.
At what point does it bother you that the elected president committed multiple crimes to get elected? At what point do you get to the point where the lies he tells you is enough.
Many of us were willing to give him a chance once he was elected. Were we stunned by the result, sure. But if he was duly elected, honest, and worked to better the interests and security for all Americans, that would have been someone we could get behind.
What you have though is a man who lied to us from day one, and it started with something as trivial as his crowd sizes for his inauguration. What you have is a man who was assisted in getting elected by a country that does not have our best interests in mind. What you have is a man who is sowing division and using rhetoric which is a physical danger to his American political opponents and the citizens within the media. What you have is a man working to further the interests of the wealthy in America, including himself. What you have is a man who is eroding our alliances while cozying up to some of the most ruthless dictators on the planet. A man who literally undermined US intelligence services to excuse the murder of a journalist living inside the United States.
And what we have is idiots who refuse to hold the man accountable to these dangers, whether it be the Republican party or his base.
I have seen absolutely no evidence that the left was willing to give the guy a chance. What I have seen is what now appears to be a hoax, perpetrated by Hillary, shoved into the public venue in the way of millions spent and years taken to show that there was a hoax, there was a concerted effort by biased parties within the FBI to help perpetuate it. We have evidence of wrong doing within the Obama administration, itself. We have evidence of clear wrong doing on other levels also. What I do see is a clear pattern where those on the left focus solely on Trump's flaws, some real some imagined, and turn a blind eye to all other evidence.
Give me a break. I say the guy is an a**. I point out other a**ish behavior by others. Those left of me say 'oh no. Trump is an a**. Why look at anyone else?'
Get real, or continue wearing blinders.
A hoax? Are you kidding? No, are you f***ing kidding?
Russia hacks the DNC in April of 2016.
Shortly after, in April, Papadapolous is e-mailing senior Trump aides that he can get his hands on the hacked material from a Russian contact.
Trump Sr. asks Russia on live TV to hack Clinton and find the missing e-mails. Later that night, they attempt it.
Trump Jr. takes a meeting when offered dirt on Clinton from a Russian contact in June of 2016, brings his Brother-in-law and the Campaign Director. Says he is disappointed the dirt wasn't better. Entire family lies repeatedly about taking the meeting, lie about what the meeting was about. But we have to believe there wasn't a quid pro quo negotiated at the meeting because they deny it.
Carter Page, previous recruited by the Russians and under FISA
surveillance, while working for the Trump campaign, meets with Russians in July 2016, IN MOSCOW. Later that month, he's seen talking with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at the Republican National Convention. Why was Kisylak even at the event?
Russia runs a social media campaign against Clinton, to assist Trump to get elected.
Trump denies Russian involvement in the hacking, even after being briefed by the FBI during the campaign that they are doing it, changes the Republican platform on Ukraine to be more pro-Russia prior to the election.
Trump is exploring business opportunities in Russia during the campaign and lying to the American people about it.
Barr, a Trump ally, summarizes 400-pages of information into a 4-page statement, basically mirroring a 19-page brief he submitted publicly weeks before seeing the report's findings. I believe Barr about as much as I believe the Trump Tower meeting was about adoptions.
Calling the hacking of the 2016 election a hoax is just a flat out lie. Saying Trump did not benefit from that foreign support is a flat out lie. Saying he did not encourage it is another flat out lie.
Yes and forces within the Ukraine were actively working on Hillary's behalf. Hillary paid a guy to go troll I report on CNN, put together a bs dossier to peddle out. Testimony from parties at congressional hearings show a clear pattern of bias and illegal activity focused on negatively affecting then candidate Trump.
But, oh wait. That doesn't put a negative spin on Trump. Let's ignore that.
Did you just whataboutism me to try and ignore every claim I laid out? That was a sad attempt to defend your claim that the Mueller Investigation was a hoax.
The Mueller Investigation WAS a hoax...in the sense that it was not about finding Russian collusion. Rather it was about finding anything it could that would put the President in a bad light, legal or illegal.
There was some justification into looking into collusion, albeit not near enough to spend years investigating it. There was NO reason to branch out into other fields that had nothing to do with the claim that was made; that Donald Trump colluded with Russians to fix the election.
And now we see the same thing happening again; there is nothing whatsoever to justify revealing personal, private IRS information to the public, yet that is exactly what is being tried. And it isn't stopping there - last count there were, I think, an additional 17 "investigations" that are nothing but searching desperately for dirt on the President.
We require probably cause for an investigation. We require a warrant, setting out exactly what is being looked for and the probably cause behind it, for a search. We require a judge to sign off on a wire tap. But nothing is being required for the enormous effort to find dirt on the president but a desire to hurt him. It is wrong, plain and simple.
The ONLY Hoax being perpetrated on the USA is sitting in our oval office:
And this is why I think you're nothing short of a traitor. You see an investigation into a hostile foreign government that interfered to elect their preferred candidate, with many of that candidate's aides having contacts with that government and then lying to the American public and the investigators about those contacts, as a negative.
And then you still see no need to root out people who have committed criminal acts from working in the current administration. If Trump had divested from his business interests, there would be no need for his taxes. But with questions pertaining to him using the office to enrich himself, the question of his finances is both valid and should be investigated to ensure that his policies benefit our country and not himself.
And it's probable cause. Just so you can sound knowledgeable about the point you're trying to make there.
Didn't read too well, did you? For I specifically said the investigation was reasonable, at least if it had a much better foundation as a cause.
It was the branching out into much different fields that was NOT all right, and that is absolutely in line with how our justice system works.
"If Trump had divested from his business interests, there would be no need for his taxes."
Don't be ridiculous; there will be investigations into whatever they can think of, by the Democrats, as long as Trump is in office. There isn't a need now, there wasn't a need at any time in the past, and until actual wrongdoing of some kind is found there won't be one in the future, either. Not for the "reasons" they are being called for.
You seem to be operating under the theory that if you can ask questions you have a right, legal or otherwise, to perform indefinite "investigations" using any and all resources of the justice system, into whatever you wish. You don't, and neither do they, although they may have the political power to force it anyway. Our justice system does not work that way, Thank God, for anyone and everyone can ask questions without a shred of evidence to give cause for those questions. Conspiracy theories and unfounded questions are NOT probably cause, no matter how you might wish they were.
I read just fine. When you say that the investigation existed just to make Trump look bad, I will call you a traitor every single time. When you wake up and realize that a hostile foreign government succeeded in interfering to elect their preferred candidate, and they likely did it for reasons that will harm our country, an investigation should be undertaken and the results given to the American people to educated them about the dangers that will exist in future elections.
Trump has already been implicated in two crimes that he personally committed to become elected. We've laid those out for you numerous times. Therefore, your point that he doesn't deserve further investigation I would refute, because as a known criminal who is currently using the office he holds to shield himself from prison, it is imperative to see what other laws he may be breaking that could be harmful to the country.
And actually, to secure positions at the highest levels of our government, the FBI conducts extremely thorough background checks into those people. I would wager a lot of money that if there was a background check done on Trump for a top-level security clearance, he would have failed it hugely. Maybe even in record fashion.
Yeah. Russia posted fake news on FB. That's quite a "cause" for a 2 year investigation into collusion between the president and Russia. Not.
That's what I said - you can "implicate" simply by saying "I think he done wrong". But that is NOT a reason to investigate your claim. Think hard how you would feel if your neighbor told the police "I think Valeant is making meth because, you know, he's not a very nice person" and you spent the next two years fending off cops trampling through your living room as a result.That's what you're supporting, not a reasonable cause for 2 years of investigation into everything from voter fraud to bad campaign financing.
And then you can go on and declare Trump as a "known criminal" without ever showing a conviction for anything, not even a speeding ticket. That's your "implication" at work - just name calling without anything to back it with. Just like the "implication" that he is using the office to shield himself from jail - without a conviction your "implication" is worth nothing at all.
You can claim all you wish that Trump would fail a background check - that kind of crap is what started the investigation - but it is worth less than nothing without evidence to back it. And, just like the investigation, there isn't any - just your word that you don't like Trump.
This isn't about Trump, it isn't about how badly you hate the man, it isn't even about how badly the Dem's want himi out of office. It's about gross misuse of nation assets and the justice system to harass the president without ever having any probable cause to do so (your insistence that he is a criminal is not probable cause, no matter how many times you say it is).
You example is such idiocy because it ignores the many contacts between Trump's campaign and Russia. You know, the people who actually hacked the DNC and then used those e-mails to sway public opinion, especially of Bernie Sanders supporters. Saying it was just a facebook campaign ignores all that was done and makes you look completely uneducated about the topic. Please, take the time to read the Senate's summary about all that was done before trying to dismiss the results as just a facebook campaign.
You keep making the argument that a conviction is needed to prove Trump a criminal, yet many in the Justice Department believe it's not allowable to indict a sitting president. So while Trump was named as a co-conspirator in a felony conviction, he will need to face those charges when he gets out of office. And if there was no crime, why did the Southern District of NY force Trump to repay the money he illegally spent on himself and his campaign, ban him or his kids from sitting on the board of any foundation, and then shutter the doors of that criminal enterprise? Why did Trump comply unless he was caught dead-to-rights violating the law? Again, when he gets out of office, he will need to face those criminal charges.
It's not hate, it's fact. The fact is you elected a criminal. Now you're one of the sheep buying the cover ups of his many crimes. Me, I want to see the investigative data. I want to see the argument for the obstruction of justice he admitted to on live tv during the Lester Holt interview and the following day in the Oval Office to the Russian Ambassador as he revealed top secret information to them about the Israelis. That kind of incompetence is another reason he likely would have failed his background check.
"You keep making the argument that a conviction is needed to prove Trump a criminal, yet many in the Justice Department believe it's not allowable to indict a sitting president."
You are correct; before naming him a criminal he must face a court of law and a jury that proclaims him to be. Not just your statement, with unproven allegations and unanswered questions of "Why did he do this, then?". Something you don't seem to grasp is that such allegations and questions do not prove guilt and thus do not prove he is a criminal.
Again, it is not about Trump; it is about people that try to use unsupported claims as proof. That's not how the system works or you would have cops searching your house weekly, going through your financial transactions and checking out your friends to make sure you aren't making meth in the basement. Just to be sure, you know.
You have a valid argument. But when the courts name him as Individual-1 in a criminal conviction, something done when they would charge that individual if they could, I'm convinced. When a criminal admits to a crime, I take them to be guilty of that crime. Both of these things have occurred, so it is enough evidence for me to know Trump is a criminal.
All well said wilderness! Too bad you are talking to a wall of Looney left wing talking points.
Actually, my point was along the lines of what appears to me to be tunnel vision on your part.
It's ok to just say, 'Yes, I was wrong. The investigation was clearly warranted with all the scenarios you laid out.'
It would also be ok for you to say 'I don't get it and I don't want to.'
I get it. Russia attacked our 2016 election and I support the investigation into what happened and who was involved. I also want to see as many of the 400 pages to formulate my own opinion instead of listening to one side's guy or the others.
I support the investigation. I just get tired of the ridiculous narrative on the side you seem to listen to, to the detriment of truth.
Joe Biden is not accused of groping women. No one has accused him of doing anything of a sexual nature. There is no video or photographic evidence of him groping anyone.
He has at times gotten awkwardly close to both men and women while expressing support for them.
You can criticize him for intruding on people's personal space and not understanding people's boundaries, but that is a far cry from "groping" women or doing anything of a sexual nature.
What adult man in the public eye, a senator and VP for heaven's sake, doesn't know when he is intruding on people's personal space and not understanding people's boundaries?
If he were a Republican no one would accept ignorance as an excuse yet that is exactly what Biden is doing. His excuse was there was no intention.
I guess he learned that from Comey's explanation that Hiliary had no intentions to break the law.
On the other hand did any of the seven women tell him how they felt about his behavior at the time? If they did and he kept doing it that would suggest a serious disconnect in his personality.
I doubt anyone said a word to the man, asking him to get out of their personal space. But, seriously. If he is grossly unaware of how such a transgression would make a decent woman feel uncomfortable he isn't really someone who can represent that segment of the population.
You do like to downplay Russia interference.
I get it. It takes some effort trying to convince yourself, eh?
He's a sheep that has bought Trump's line that maybe it wasn't them. He completely lacks the ability to do independent research and continues to embarrass himself with his lack of knowledge about the data.
And you are missing the whole point - that our justice system was, and is, used in a manner which it was not only not designed for but is prohibited by law.
But if you find that interference to be so terrible, don't you think we should be prosecuting all the people that post memes and other statements that are not factual? Or is just Russians that must follow our laws?
by PrettyPanther 4 months ago
Number one reason: He is problematic because he is not a strong enough contrast from Donald Trump. Joe has a history of gaffes his entire political career. Combine that tendency to say the wrong thing with his advancing age, and you have a problem. Joe is already showing why...
by ga anderson 11 months ago
In a recent interview, Joe Biden says his family wants him to run for the presidency.As a non-affiliated conservative-minded fella, I would vote for him.As a Maryland resident that had meetings with him when he was just a Delaware Representative, (beers and Elk's Club Boy Scout dinners), I would...
by ga anderson 9 months ago
Joe Biden becomes 20th Democratic candidate.*click to watchI think the content of the video was a smart move.GA
by John 4 months ago
I don't know about you, but the wagon wheels on this impeachment iniative are starting to come off. The recent challenge by Trump for Pelosi to bring the impeachment inquiry to a house vote is a win-win move. If it comes to a vote and they decide not to impeach, then we go back to waiting for the...
by Flightkeeper 9 years ago
Joe Biden was fined $219,000 for campaign violations, why doesn't anyone care?
by Yves 3 years ago
Does anyone else find it odd that Trump is not really going after on Hillary on her bad history?Yes, he calls her "Lying Hillary" and states that she would be a "terrible president." But come on people, HRC is attacking his record point by point, and in great detail, but still,...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|