Joe Biden

Joe Biden Said He Believes All Women. Does He Believe Tara Reade?

A former staffer says he sexually assaulted her in 1993.

|

When it comes to #MeToo sexual misconduct issues, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party's presumptive 2020 presidential nominee, has made it no secret where he stands: automatically believe women.

"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," said Biden during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who faced accusations that as a teenager he had assaulted a woman at a party.

As vice president, Biden played an important role in the Obama administration's efforts to compel colleges and universities to take sexual violence more seriously—and to adopt policies that limited the due process rights and presumption of innocence for the accused. In recent years, his rhetoric on these issues has been in lockstep with #MeToo activists.

Despite his public pronunciations on the subject of never touching women without their explicit verbal consent, Biden has previously faced accusations that he was too handsy with people. But now the former vice president is facing a much more serious accusation of sexual assault, from an alleged former staffer named Tara Reade.

It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will assign Reade's story as much credibility and importance as that of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Kavanaugh; they certainly have not done so yet. In any case, supporters of Biden—as well as the candidate himself—should take this opportunity to reflect on whether automatic belief is a useful or practical approach for handling decades' old claims of misconduct.

Reade describes herself as a "California-based victim rights advocate and activist" in her interview with the journalist Katie Halper, who has helped bring this accusation to light. Reade says she worked for Biden in the early 1990s and asserts that she was unambiguously assaulted by him in 1993. According to Reade, he began kissing her without her permission, pushed her against a wall, reached under her skirt, and penetrated her with his fingers.

"He said 'come on man, I heard you liked me,'" Reade recalled to Halper in the interview. "For me, it was like, everything shattered. I looked up to him, he was like my father's age, he was this champion of women's rights, in my eyes. I couldn't believe it was happening. It was surreal."

Reade had already complained to her bosses about sexual harassment in Biden's office—she said a supervisor had once asked her to serve drinks at an event because she had attractive legs—but had shared the more serious accusation against Biden with a few close confidants. She said she once tried to talk to a supervisor about what had happened, but this person shut her down before she could tell the whole story. She also said she filled out an official form detailing her assault, but does not know what became of it.

A year ago, Reade—who supported the campaigns of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)—attempted to come forward with stories of sexual harassment in Biden's offices. As detailed in an Intercept piece, she reached out to Time's Up, a project of the National Women's Law Center that provides support to alleged #MeToo victims. Time's Up declined to assist Reade; the organization's official excuse was that a feud with a national political candidate could jeopardize their status as a 501(c)(3) non-partisan group. But as The Intercept also notes:

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. A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment. The SKDK spokesperson assigned to Time's Up referred questions back to the NWLC.

The mainstream media has given Reade little attention. She was interviewed on Hill.TV by Krystall Ball and Saagar Enjeti (whose populist impulses often put them at odds with the establishments of both parties), but The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN have all declined to cover the story thus far.

The anti-Biden left, however, has seized the opportunity. #IBelieveTaraReade was trending on Twitter on Thursday. Nathan Robinson, editor of the leftist publication Current Affairs, has criticized MSNBC and CNN for failing to cover the story.

Sanders supporters, of course, have every incentive to weaponize this last-minute accusation against Biden in an attempt to deny him the nomination. And Biden fans have every reason to roll their eyes at these attempts; they can write off Reade as someone who, at the very least, waited too long to tell her story, and was a supporter of rival campaigns.

Both sides have a point. Barring the emergence of some really credible documentation, it's going to be nearly impossible to informally adjudicate—formal adjudication being absolutely impossible—the accusation. Too much time has passed.

On the other hand, the very recent precedent set by the mainstream media and mainstream liberals during the Kavanaugh episode is that all accusations should be revisited, no matter how old. Indeed, one could make a better argument for considering Reade's accusation than Blasey Ford's: the latter concerns behavior that occurred during the accused person's teenage years in the early 1980s, whereas Biden allegedly committed his transgression while a sitting U.S. senator. And again, Biden himself has taken the position that we should believe women even if it takes them a very, very long time to come forward.

It seems unlikely the Reade accusation can sink Biden's candidacy, but whether Democratic primary voters and the mainstream media are willing to air it out as they did Kavanaugh's will tell us a lot about what "believe all women" actually means.

Advertisement

NEXT: Do Gun Dealers Count As 'Essential' Businesses That Can Stay Open Under COVID-19 Lockdowns?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You expect him to remember that far back?

    1. “Come on, man, I can’t remember what I had for breakfast!”

      1. Very funny but seriously? Who says stuff like “hey man I heard you liked me” to a woman he just diddled … Probably the same guy who has “No Malarkey” bus tour in 2020.

        1. Well, she is a lying, dog-faced pony soldier, after all.

        2. Do you utilize a pay_pal account, in the event if you do you can create an additional 1600 weekly in your pay-check only working at home for a few hours every day. see….. Read More

        3. [ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ] Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family&relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65oo to $7ooo a month. I’ve started this job and earnhandsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. You can check it out here…
          More Read

        4. Joe Biden says crap like that. No malarkey.

    2. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    3. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

    4. If Biden had an ‘R’ after his name, the media would be asking him if he remembered raping her.

      1. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      2. Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting “grabbing pussy” on camera so let’s keep some things in perspective here.

        1. I think he actually said he “could” get away with it, because of his celebrity status, but, yeah, perspective

          1. He actually said “they let you grab their pussy”. That’s consent not assault.

        2. What Gomy said. Trump also said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and maintain support for his campaign. Do you think Trump shot someone on 5th Ave.?

        3. He did not admit to having done so. He stated that ‘groupies’ would let you grab them by the pussy because of his celebrity. Anyone who is a major star would be able to make the same statement.
          Biden stands accused of sexually molesting a woman against her will.
          These two things hardly compare.

        4. The difference is hot chicks seek out Trump to get their pussies grabbed. Because he’s a commented billionaire who had a top rated TV show, and chicks go for that. Which is what he was talking about.

          But you’re a stupid lying piece of shit who makes things up because progtards support losers and that’s all you’ve got.

          1. Remember when the entire media had a panic attack over those comments on the Access Hollywood tape? While this was going on, those same people knew that Epstein was raping children… and then decided to cover it up.

  2. “tell us a lot about what “believe all women” actually means.”

    It means believe *real* women – not the bigoted definition of a woman as someone with a woman’s body parts, but the new definition of a woman as a woke Democrat.

    Of course this case is difficult because Biden is getting attacked by leftists, so this is a catfight between ultra-left and the (comparatively) moderate left.

    The usual rule would be that the more leftist person is the credible one, but there’s a complicating factor that if Biden actually gets the nomination this accusation could help Trump. Which would make the accuser objectively right-wing and therefore not a real woman.

    I hope I’ve clarified matters enough for you.

    1. “Logical consistency is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples.”

      The ideological base of the Leftists is postmodernism, which is *explicitly* a doctrine of power which *explicitly* endorses ideological manipulation not merely as desirable, but as the *only* function of *all* discourse with their enemies.

      They *always* argue with the enemy in bad faith. They don’t consider that a bug, they consider it a feature. Don’t look at what they say to you, look at the core doctrines they implant in *each other*. Their doctrines entail systematic dishonesty with their enemies, and they see anyone opposing their power as an enemy.

      1. I just love the term “white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy” it is so now … Once the world regains it’s senses I hope we can dispose of language like this. I can’t imagine my father as he stormed the beaches of Tarawa or my brother conducting covert ops in Cambodia worried one hoot about white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy… it is reassuring that some “nattering nabobs of negativism” seem to be..

        1. We’ll never dispose of it. It’s natural for different groups to create jargon to help communicate complex ideas and nuanced categorizations. Jargon is here to stay. People just need to realize that it isn’t always necessary, it doesn’t always indicate truth and it can be used/abused by anyone.

      2. If logic was good enough for Vulcans, who are not white humans, it’s certainly good enough for me.

        1. I thought cosplay made white people even more white.

        2. can’t. because cultural appropriation

    2. “It means believe *real* women – not the bigoted definition of a woman as someone with a woman’s body parts, but the new definition of a woman as a woke Democrat.”

      C’mon, man, that’s so transphobic. The new definition says a *real* woman can have male body parts, too.

  3. Womp waaaaaaa

  4. She said she once tried to talk to a supervisor about what had happened, but this person shut her down before she could tell the whole story.

    “He fixes the cable?”

    1. The article also says Reade was a supporter of Elizabeth Warren. Now, that is a woman you can believe!!!!!

  5. How did anyone ever think that “believe all women” is a reasonable way to proceed through life?

      1. Well just that one woman. Because that bitch she works with is a lying piece of shit.

      2. You don’t have to believe her. You just shut up and agree with her.

        1. Or even just shut up.

    1. Did anyone ever think that “believe all women” was anything other than a tactical weapon to be used against Republican Supreme Court nominees?

      1. Literally no one…well, some of them thought it could be used against Republican Senators, Republican Representatives, Republican Presidents, Republican Sheriffs, and people who were college Republicans…

        1. Any man in college, not just college Republicans. Helpful if accused college man is also a “person-of-color”, since they’re NEVER believed.

      2. It was thought to be useful against any non-Lefty men who did not cave to the Lefty terror.

      3. Well some people did.
        And it also seems to be deployed against proper standards of evidence and presumption of innocence in various proceedings.

    2. No one should asked me as I have been married 3 times

    3. All women?

      How about Countess Elizabeth Bathory or Lizzie Borden or Eva Braun with her human skin lampshades? Do we believe women like that as well? Or just decent, respectable women who don’t lie, much less murder people?

      1. Depends if Elizabeth Bathory, Lizzie Borden or Eva Braun would’ve voted Democrat or not.
        That’s why Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin irredeemable tools of the patriarchy.

  6. I don’t think it will have any effect on Biden. He will deny it, the media will ignore it, and no serious investigation will happen. Didn’t sink Willy Clinton now did it and he got impeached.

    Biden was VP for 8 years. Seems she is late to the party. And no we should not believe all women. After the Kavanaugh incident it is clear we should ignore them unless they provide evidence.

    1. People saying she told them at the time qualifies as evidence. Maybe not 100% proof, but that is evidence.

      1. It might be evidence but accusations from almost 30 years ago is unfair.

        How are you possibly supposed to defend against those accusations?

        1. Have Oprah interview you. If at the end of the interview, everyone in the audience gets a car that means you are exonerated.

        2. That’s why we have statutes of limitation. It doesn’t matter if she’s telling the truth, if he can’t mount a defense he’s presumed innocent. End of story. Biden is in the process of self destructing in any case.

          1. Statutes of limitations do not apply to concealed crimes. If she can substantiate that her boss had stopped her from filing a sexual assault complaint, and then it’s a concealed crime. Statute of limitations started when she went public.

            1. I did not mean to say that a statute of limitation applied in this particular case, I was only referring to the reasons that those statutes exist. As far as I know there is no criminal complaint against Biden and if one is forthcoming I have no idea what the statute might be in whatever jurisdiction the complaint might be filed in. I’m not an attorney but if your claims about “concealed crimes” are correct I think it’s pretty scary shit. I don’t see how the actions of a third party could prevent this woman from filing a legal complaint the day it happened. If she can delay the statute of limitations for decades simply by waiting to talk to the press about it there really is no limitation.

        3. I think the first giveaway is that she is a self described “California-based victim rights advocate and activist”. In other words she is bats#$t crazy.

        4. The democrats should treat a idea the same way they treated Kavanaugh.

          1. This is way more believable than Kavenaugh.

            1. Well yes, it is. My point is that they should viciously attack Nidem in public just to be consistent. Democrats are consistent and honest, right?

            2. don’t trust anyone but come on sex hessen and enjoy

        5. “It might be evidence but accusations from almost 30 years ago is unfair.”

          30 years ago, 5 minutes ago, when it comes to Biden’s memory, what difference at this point does it make?

      2. No, that qualifies as hearsay.

        1. Not if the question is “Was this accusation just made up for this election?” With political accusations, not having anyone who ever heard this accusation before the guy started running against your guy, is a huge negative mark.

          1. How do we know these people heard this accusation before now?

            All we have is a some people who claim to have heard it.

            Now, I don’t like Biden but I’m going to give him as much benefit of the doubt as I was willing to extend to Kavanaugh – and look how many people came forward to claim that they had been told of those accusations in the past.

        2. Hearsay is evidence. It’s of reduced credibility, and it’s often not legally admissible, but it’s still evidence.

          1. Hearsay isn’t evidence. Period. Its ‘well but *he said*!

      3. Yes, it is evidence.

        In Ford’s case, every single bit of possibly-corroborating evidence for her account, when checked, contradicted it. Not some one way, some the other; all the evidence undermined her credibility. Surviving schedule records, every witness Ford named, her therapist’s records of her private 2014 account — every time Ford’s accusations could be checked against something, that something contradicted her account.

        The question, then, is what happens when we check Reade against such evidence. If it all comes up against her, we each should treat her credibility as we treated Ford’s. If any of it corroborates her story, we should each treat her story as that much more credible than Ford’s.

        1. First, is Reade specific about the time and place? If so, just that makes her more credible than Ford (unless and until that specific information makes it possible to find evidence against her story).

          My first thought on hearing Ford’s story was that it seemed crafted to avoid giving any detail that would allow Kavanaugh to look for an alibi (even as unlikely as finding one after 30 years would be). In its initial form, it also gave nowhere to begin looking for witnesses to corroborate or contradict the story. Then Ford gradually “remembered” others present at the party, although not witnesses to the assault – but none of these could even confirm that there had been such a party.

          1. And then I learned that Ford first remembered the assault in therapy more than a decade later. Memory does not work like a tape recorder; telling about an event or even searching your memory for it will tend to _write_ over the original memory. This explains the vagueness – to a psychotherapist the only thing that matters how the deeply disturbed patient presenting this vague memory, nightmare, or confabulation _feels_ about it. Who, what, and when, and even whether it’s a memory or a nightmare, don’t matter in psychotherapy – but become very important when you accuse someone!

            It seems to me that most likely, this is either a false memory, or a distorted and vague memory of a real event, with the actual attackers replaced by two guys who became prominent later – Mike Judge by publishing a memoir of a youth wasted in drunken stupidity, and Kavanaugh by becoming a Republican of some significance. (She clearly hates Republicans.) Even if I believed she believes she is telling the truth, I don’t believe she _knows_ the truth.

            Reade allegedly told her story to others at the time, and named Biden. If that checks out, she’s more credible than Ford _can_ be.

            1. It seems to me that most likely, this is either a false memory, or a distorted and vague memory of a real event, with the actual attackers replaced by two guys who became prominent later

              Yep. I believe that the most likely scenario is that something traumatic happened to Christine Blasey, likely with a group of around four guys (both because that’s the number in her therapist notes and a group large enough for peer pressure/diffusion of responsibility effects to cause a “joke” to go too far), probably (given the timing issues) about a year or two later. And then she, over the decades, got her memories conflated with the stories in Mark Judge’s book, including the book’s “Bart O’Kavanaugh”.

        2. Surviving schedule records, every witness Ford named, her therapist’s records of her private 2014 account — every time Ford’s accusations could be checked against something, that something contradicted her account.

          And yet, suitable for submission by the FBI and approval by the FISA Courts.

    2. we should ignore them unless they provide evidence.

      Evidence is a patriarchal construct. That’s straight up misogynistic to even suggest that womyn should have to provide evidence when accusing a white man of sexual assault. Report to the nearest re-education center at once, citizen!

    3. Of course, we’re just trying to point out that the people screaming loudest about “believe all women” during Kavanaugh confirmation tend to be people who will simply ignore this claim as a political attack, just like they ignored Paula Jones, and will not notice the irony due to their cognitive dissonance.

      A cynic would call them hypocrites.

      We’re certainly not saying that anyone ever should have “believed all women”, because even while that claim was being made, there were far too many real cases of women lying about being raped, molested, or assaulted, and for various reasons (not just political attacks).

    4. Considering both their ages it could simply be written off to early stages of Dementia… My mother bless her heart at 85 fantasized she had an affair with the 40 year old man who did odd jobs for her after my dad died. It was really quite unbelievable.

    5. Biden is twice the man Trump is. Trump makes empty boasts about grabbing women by the pussy, Biden does it.

      1. I am in awe.

  7. Poor Joe. Getting the me-too treatment.

  8. I’m highly skeptical, like I usually am with these kinds of claims.

    Do I believe he probably touched her at some point? Absolutely. The creep touches just about every female he encounters, including twelve year old girls. But there’s a big difference between simply touching someone and sexually assaulting someone.

    1. What Biden is willing to do on camera makes off-camera allegations like this that much more credible.

      1. What I don’t understand and never have is why his wife has never privately told him at any point that he should stop acting like such a dirty old creep in full view of the entire world.

        1. She probably has, but given his public statements, he might have pointed his double-barreled shotgun in the air and fired two blasts to deal with the “problem”…

          1. Or not. Men like this usually vet their wives carefully so that they end up with a complacent helpmeet who stays quiet.

            1. My Dad is Biden’s age and my mom is constantly telling him not to do stupid shit, but he just ignores her.
              There’s a lot of toddler’s impulsivity in old men.

        2. Ask Hillary.

      2. You make a good point.

        In Kavanaugh’s case, every single person who knows him says he’s a straight arrow who drank and partied hard in his college days. There were zero insinuations that he was even a playboy.

        But even facing denials by every named witness and a calendar that pretty much proved it was impossible, the left insisted that it was totally credible and disqualifying. (both conclusions sound crazy to me)

        Meanwhile, this sort of fits a pattern with Biden. He’s on camera being uncomfortably familiar with a lot of women. Many have said that he made them uncomfortable with his actions that bordered on pawing.

        And her description of events would certainly be a lot closer to disqualifying than a brief teenage tickle-fight.

        Somebody needs to call Kamala Harris.

        1. I call Kamala Harris a politico-whore who studied under Willie Brown.

          1. She studied Brown’s Willie.

          2. “I call Kamala Harris a politico-whore who studied under Willie Brown.”

            “Look, Students, this would be a particular case for the proper use of the word ‘Literally'”.

            1. But if you use “literally” or “flaunt” correctly these days, who would understand you?

      3. I’m not sure that Joe is much different off-camera. He barely seems aware of them when he’s in front of them, so I think the malarkey he’s done on tape is basically his modus operandi.

    2. He was sniffing babies just 2 weeks ago.

      1. now that is sick..

    3. Not anymore. Haven’t you been paying attention?

  9. Biden could rape someone right in front of a CNN camera and CNN would cut away.

    1. And Trump could murder someone in midtown Manhattan and still get reelected. What a world we live in!

      1. Not remotely the same thing. One is merely figurative. The other a literal description of the media’s advocacy for leftist candidates.

    2. “Biden could rape someone right in front of a CNN camera and CNN would cut away”

      ABC: We killed the Epstein story in 2016 to cover for the Clintons.
      CBS: So what? We will fire anyone here today who doesn’t cover for the Clintons.
      NBC: Hey, we killed the Harvey Weinstein story. And protected Matt Lauer. You know where we stand.
      CNN: Hey guys, hold our beer and watch this.

  10. Wow. Tara Reid has really gone downhill since sharknado. Sad.

    1. Did you SEE Sharknado 6? She was 99% of the way down to the bottom then.

      1. Haha. No, never saw it. I should’ve used the big Lebowski. She was still cute then.

  11. Gotcha journalism!

  12. But now the former vice president is facing a much more serious credible accusation of sexual assault, from an alleged former staffer named Tara Reade.

    Remember “credible”? Or has our little Robbie finally figured out the difference between “credible” and “plausible” and why so many of us were irritated at his constant conflation of the two?

    1. Barring the emergence of some really credible documentation, it’s going to be nearly impossible to informally adjudicate—formal adjudication being absolutely impossible—the accusation. Too much time has passed.

      We can all go back and read what Soave considered credible and timely just a year ago. This is more credible and much more timely.

      Can we consider Robbie hoist with his own petard?

      1. Yes. But he doesn’t seem to be aware of it. Not sure if it’s funny or just sad.

    2. Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about that, and how ludicrous it was to call Ford’s accusations credible.

      1. Look, she had a lot of emotion in her voice when she recounted the events. That makes it credible.

        Ignore the fact that her star eyewitness and best friend says she never met Kavanaugh and doesn’t believe a word of it. Emotion in the voice is the sole guarantor of credibility.

    3. It was painful to watch him twist himself into linguistic knots over credible and plausible. As I recall he finally settled on “eminently plausible”.

  13. “Indeed, one could make a better argument for considering Reade’s accusation than Blasey Ford’s: the latter concerns behavior that occurred during the accused person’s teenage years in the early 1980s, whereas Biden allegedly committed his transgression while a sitting U.S. senator.”

    Is that the only difference Robby? Hell, the worst allegation Ford had against Kavanaugh was that he tried to assault her but was too plastered to pull it off, allowing her to escape. Reade’s allegation amounts to an actual crime. And as for the age of the allegation, hasn’t the Left been pushing to eliminate statutes of limitations for sexual assault?

  14. The difference between Kavanaugh and Biden is that the claims against Kavanaugh are bullshit.

    -jcr

    1. I’m inclined to think the claims against Biden are bullshit too. It’s curious who these allegations of ancient misconduct always rear their heads at strategic moments. Never when, you know, something could actually be done about them. This is nothing more than a cras grasping after a few paltry minutes of fame.

      1. In fairness, she did trial balloon the thing before Biden was the main DNC candidate for president. And she wasn’t alone.

        The penetrative sexual assault is new…

        And I didn’t read the whole thing, but it is of marginal credibility if I understood correctly. It sounds like he accosted her within earshot of other staff. That sounds really, really unlikely. At least as described. Anyone who would do that out of the blue, with no prior relationship at all…. that dude is going to get arrested for sexual assault at some point.

        1. “that dude is going to get arrested for sexual assault at some point.”

          If said dude hadn’t been a US Senator for…(checks wikipedia page)…holy shit! He’d already been a Senator for 20 years at the time of the alleged assault. And that was 27 years ago. Anyway, I can see a victim not wanting to go forward, because she wouldn’t have thought she’d be believed in 1993. Not when the accused was a Democrat Senator for the prior 20 years.

          This guy’s been a government parasite for a very, very long time.

          1. I don’t think this is the Right putting her up to this. This smells like Team Blue trying to divest themselves of a guy they don’t think can make it through November without doing something like shitting himself on stage, or hauling off and punching a campaign rally attendee. Assuming we get to have those again.

            He must be a complete disaster behind closed doors at this point, if the Dem leadership thinks they need to do this and get him out. That, or they feel the virus crisis can continue to November, and makes Trump vulnerable enough to lose to a decent candidate, one who won’t have a ridiculous, campaign-killing gaffe along the way.

            Not sure who that would be, given I understand that Cuomo has a graveyard’s worth of corruption skeletons in his closet.

          2. By “that dude is gonna get arrested at some point”, I didn’t mean for that particular assault. I meant “the kid of guy who would casually walk up to an employee that he isn’t already intimate with and sexually assault her in a hallway” is going to get arrested at some point because he’s the kind of guy who does stuff like that. And at some point one of them is going to scream for help and report him to the police.

            That’s not borderline behavior. That’s way, way over the top. Per her version, they had no relationship on a personal level. Walking up to her and forcing yourself on her in the middle of a work task is really crazy. That’s never going to work out.

      2. But gropey Joe said himself that we have to believe all women, so the only thing he can do at this point is turn himself in and plead guilty to sexual assault.

        -jcr

      3. Well, the story actually makes sense. The accusation was that she accused him at the time but was pressured into silence by her superiors because the perpetrator was the big boss. This is exactly the sort of thing that the MeToo movement was supposed to counter. According to stories, this sort of thing was rampant in the 80s and 90s.

        Also, there is the simple fact that the man is potentially the next president of the United States. Of course, if she’s going to risk her livelihood to put this out, NOW is the time.

  15. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  16. Who cares?

  17. “He said ‘come on man, I heard you liked me,'” Reade recalled

    ‘You’re not called a staffer for nothing!’

  18. “She also said she filled out an official form detailing her assault, but does not know what became of it.”

    It would be most interesting if they could find that report, or find someone who recalls the report being filed.

    1. Perhaps Loretta Fuddy could help find it.

    2. Start searching the DC area landfills, I’m sure you’ll be able to find it in one of them.

    3. In a circular file somewhere with Obama’s college applications and grades.

    4. It ended up on Lois Lerner’s crashed hard drive.

  19. So he literally “just started kissing her”, AND grabbed her by the pussy?

    And people whine about Trump.

    1. That’s what I don’t get. Biden’s actions are considered unimportant, but Trump’s words are criminal.

      This is the biggest issue I see here. In Trump, we see a president whose actions aren’t really that different from either Bush, but his words are over the top. People seem to focus almost solely on his words and ignore his actions.

      1. I mean, I get it. I hate listening to Trump speak. I cannot stand his news conferences. However, I can separate his policies and his personality (which, surprisingly enough, I also do for all politicians). Trump may very well be an asshole in multiple ways, but I do agree with some of his policies.

        Nobody on the left can separate people and policies like that, at least with people on the right.

  20. Get your popcorn ready everyone. It’s gonna be real entertaining watching the mental gymnastics of the woke crowd on this one.

    1. You really think the woke crowd is going to address this?

      If it doesn’t make it on The Daily Show or Kimmel, it doesn’t exist. And even then, they have to run to MSNBC or CNN to tell them what to think.

      “The Intercept” is no longer useful to them, so they don’t imbue it with any credibility. Nobody woke is reading Reason or any other alt-right Nazi sympathizing website. Zero chance they know it exists outside the Bernie Bro’s.

      1. They turned on the Intercept years ago, when it immediately (and correctly) called bullshit on the Russia hacking story

  21. “In an interview with TIME.com, Maran explained how and why she decided to write her memoir, My Lie.[15] She explained that in 2007, a hiking acquaintance had asked if she had ever done anything she still regretted. Maran replied that she had accused her father of molesting her, and hadn’t spoken to him for eight years. Maran [later] realized that the accusation wasn’t true. Maran’s hiking acquaintance said that exactly the same thing had happened to her. That prompted Maran to address the examples and abuses that included false accounts—and the pain and suffering inflicted on people who were innocent like her father—in order to answer the question: “How could it happen that people who never suffered such harrowing experiences would come to believe that they had?”[16]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Maran

    When society reveres victims as being about the greatest thing you can be, it’s no wonder that people aspire to achieve that status–consciously or subconsciously.

    People have been admiring and emulating martyrs since before the Roman empire was Christianized. Christianity didn’t just help create that environment. It flourished in that environment.

    Modern parallels abound. Girls in the Victorian era loved to imagine themselves as Ophelia. People today still love to read about, watch, and imagine themselves as innocent victims. Ever seen a soap opera or every Lifetime movie ever? Meanwhile, there’s a term for what happens to us psychologically when there’s a break down between what’s a part of ourselves and what’s “other”. It’s called “abjection”.

    Ever heard of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, in which a parent makes symptoms (consciously or otherwise) or even harms a child–so that they can feel the glow of both pity and be the hero?

    There are all sorts of reasons why someone might make up a story and believe it to be true more than a decade after the fact. Celebrities are subjected to these kinds of invented fantasies by fans all the time.

    I worked in lock down mental institution for a while. There was one patient would tie his sheets around himself in a toga and braid the fake ferns into his hair. He thought he was Nero. One of the nurses told me that he could go for long periods of time without caving into the delusion, but he’d get to certain points in his life where being the emperor of Rome was a lot more impressive than being a nobody.

    For some people, being the rape victim of whatever powerful person is probably a lot more interesting than being a soccer mom from Colorado or wherever.

    1. “People have been admiring and emulating martyrs since before the Roman empire was Christianized. Christianity didn’t just help create that environment. It flourished in that environment.”

      The pagan Roman “martyrs” were generally soldiers or other self-sacrificing sorts who gave their lives for their country, or for honor.

      The Christian martyrs consented to be killed rather than give up their faith.

      They weren’t victims in the *modern* sense of the term.

      It wasn’t just that they died or suffered – that happens a lot to lots of people – but that they chose to die or suffer for a higher cause.

      1. There are all sorts of stories from the ancient world of innocence abused–with the rape of Lucretia being one example off the top of my head. Special cases of Roman aristocrats being too harsh with slaves, especially little boys, could cause riots of outrage.

        One of the reasons the Romans (and everyone else around the Mediterranean) loathed the Phoenicians was because they ritually sacrificed their children.

        http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children

        No doubt, pagan Roman morality was different from our own in various ways, but then there isn’t a culture in the world that doesn’t have a prohibition against murder. Different cultures can and do have different conflicting concepts of what constitutes murder, but however they define the inappropriate taking of a life, the inappropriate taking of a life is wrong universally.

        Suffice it to say, innocent victims were not unknown to the ancient world before Christianity.

        1. This subthread was about “[w]hen society reveres victims as being about the greatest thing you can be.”

          Trying to stop the family of some dead aristocrat from putting all his former slaves to death doesn’t mean elevating victimhood status, it means not wanting a bunch of people to be slaughtered.

          1. “According to Livy, debt slavery (nexum) was abolished as a direct result of the attempted sexual abuse of a freeborn youth who served as surety for his father’s debt[530] with the usurer Lucius Papirius. The boy, Gaius Publilius, was notably beautiful, and Papirius insisted that as a bond slave he was required to provide sexual services. When Publilius refused, Papirius had him stripped and whipped. The youth then took to the streets to display his injuries, and an outcry among the people led the consuls to convene the senate. The political process eventually led to the Lex Poetelia Papiria, which prohibited holding debtors in bondage for their debt and required instead that the debtor’s property be used as collateral.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Master-slave_relations

            We should note that innocent victims have always been with us, and people have been moved by injustice against the innocent since forever.

            However, we are going through a period, for whatever reason, where fetishizing victimhood is rampant.

            Another example might be the Jussie Smollett case, or, indeed, Elizabeth Warren trying to present herself as a member of an indigenous tribe. People make up shit because being a victim is like the greatest thing you can be right now. Whatever else #MeToo does that’s perfectly appropriate, it also feeds into that elevation of victimhood status. What does #MeToo even mean–that you’re also a member of the victim of sexual harassment or sexual assault club? Yeah, I can see how some people might want to become premier members of that club so they can enjoy the status–consciously or subconsciously. For all I know, maybe Liz Warren really believed she was Cherokee–the question is, “Why did she want to believe that?” What was it that made her susceptible to these stories?

            My answer is that we live in a society that is presently elevating victimhood as being the greatest thing you can be.

            P.S. Ironically, I just caught the tail end of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. You can’t really be a superhero, but you can be a victim, and that’s like the next best thing to being a superhero.

            1. Why did Liz Warren want to believe she’s Cherokee? To teach at Harvard. That’s a lot more plausible than some long suppressed Freudian desire to get attention for being a victim.

              1. Wow. Have you lived under a log for the past 40 years?

              2. If Warren was able to profit financially from leveraging her false victimhood status, that doesn’t change the fact that she was able to leverage victimhood because we revere victims. Again, one of the reasons people might falsely claim victimhood status is because victims enjoy a tremendous amount of status–it can even get you a professorship at Harvard. That’s status!

                I’m not even necessarily saying that victims shouldn’t enjoy special status. I’m saying that they do enjoy a special kind of status regardless of whether that’s the way it should be, and if we give special status to certain people, some people will falsely claim that status for various reasons.

                People on the right might understand it in Second Amendment terms. Some people will use a gun to commit crimes, but few people on the right think this means that no one should be allowed to own a gun. Gun crimes may be an unfortunate side effect of the freedom to own guns. However, even IF IF IF the right to own a gun gives more people the opportunity to commit a crime with a gun, that’s not a good enough reason to violate the Second Amendment rights of people who’ve never pointed a gun at anyone.

                Likewise, giving special status to victims means some people will falsely claim victim status. Refusing to concede that some people will claim victim status falsely would be like Second Amendment enthusiasts pretending that no one will ever violate anyone’s right with a gun. People who support the Second Amendment don’t generally do that–and I don’t see why victim advocates should pretend that people never claim victim status falsely either–regardless of whether any particular case is legitimate.

                I understand there’s an organization called “Stolen Valor” that goes around exposing people for falsely claiming special status for military honors. Whether, like Warren, they do it to advance their careers or for some other motive, the fact is that when we give special status to certain people, some people will falsely claim that status.

                If all the boomers who claim to have been at Woodstock were actually there in 1969, there would have been 40 million people there instead of 400,000.

    2. Ever seen a soap opera or every Lifetime movie ever?

      I have never watched a Lifetime movie and I don’t plan to.

    3. “Ever seen a soap opera or every Lifetime movie ever? ”

      No.
      No one should.
      Ever.

    4. You need a little more evidence than that to slime someone and call them crazy for making an allegation against a politician.

      From believe all women, to they’re all crazy in a heartbeat.

      1. “From believe all women, to they’re all crazy in a heartbeat.”

        —-Kazinski

        -“There are all sorts of reasons why someone might make up a story and believe it to be true”.

        —-Ken Shultz

        If you can’t tell the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all women can’t tell the difference between saying they’re all crazy and explaining why some of them might make up allegations sometimes.

        The fact is that some people do make up allegations sometimes, (I’ve given several examples), and there are explanations for why they do that.

        “Rozita Swinton of Colorado Springs had previously made calls pretending to be a young girl. She was under investigation for posing as the caller “Sarah” who complained of abuse, but she could not be found. FLDS women did not know of any such girl and assumed that it was a prank call. Sarah was considered a real person by CPS until May when her court case was dropped, effectively acknowledging that she does not actually exist.[57] Swinton has previously been responsible for hoax calls to authorities in multiple jurisdictions, setting off large emergency responses that sometimes involved dozens of police officers.[58] Flora Jessop recorded nearly 40 hours of Swinton’s phone calls, both before and after the raid on the YFZ ranch.[59] Swinton posed alternately as “Sarah Barlow” and her sister Laura. She claimed that her 50-year-old husband beat and raped her and that his other wives tried to poison her.[60] Swinton herself was 33 at the time, unmarried, and childless.[61]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch#Rozita_Swinton

        Meanwhile, I haven’t directly addressed Tara Reade’s accusations at all.

  22. Hopefully, this will remind Democrats that all these new tactics they’re deploying work both ways. Apparently they didn’t learn from history what happens when you ally with Marxists. They always purge the old guard sooner or later, sometimes multiple times!

    1. They also purge the toadies. They don’t want anyone outside the elite thinking the elite are their friends.

  23. Fortunately we have seen nothing in Joe Biden’s behavior so far that would lend support for these claims.

  24. On the other hand, the very recent precedent set by the mainstream media and mainstream liberals during the Kavanaugh episode is that all accusations should be revisited, no matter how old.

    mainstream media and mainstream liberals and … mainstream media and mainstream liberals and …

  25. And here I thought he only like prepubescent girls.

    1. I don’t think “Diamond Joe” discriminates.

      1. He probably has _some_ limits, such as 8 to 80.

  26. So do Democrats turn on their own or do they support him and destroy the Me-Too movement?
    Interested to see where this goes.

    1. Much as we would like to believe it, supporting Biden through this will have precisely zero effect on the #metoo and #believeallwomen movement. None.

    2. No. The Democrats are going straight back to the Clinton era on this, we will be hearing “a little bit slutty and a little bit nutty” and “trailer park trash” any time now.

      Only if Bernie bows out can they throw Joe under the bus.

  27. I know you think you are making some sort of point…. don’t bother.

    They did the same thing in the 90’s. Merely describing sexual escapades in a memoir was enough to get a republican run out of town for sexual harassment, but when Clinton was credibly accused of rape – actual rape, not woke rape – sexual assault and exploiting a young intern, nothing to see here. Move along.

    The exact same people. Not just “other democrats”. They literally said Clinton was valuable to them, Proxmire was an enemy.

    You think they are going to draw the parallel between the Kavanaugh accusations – which were a nothing burger even if 100% accurate – and Biden’s accusations – which are varying degrees of obvious and in this last case, at least slightly believable – you are nuts. Biden is a democrat nominee in waiting. They do not get asked tough questions in a press conference. You really think they are going to have allegations of sexual assault amplified by the media?

    Not happening.

    Unless they find a formula to put Cuomo in his slot. That seems popular right now.

    1. Packwood, not Proxmire. Proxmire, he with the Golden Fleece Awards, was a Dem Senator from Wisconsin for 30 some odd years. Wonder why he stepped down? He lived for another 10 or so years afterwards.

      1. P.. something or other. Shoulda googled that.

  28. Data show us that prohibitionist looter fanaticism wrecks economies and when it does, parties indistinguishable from communism swell and multiply. Harrison’s war on gambling, opium and Chinamen got Cleveland elected but the Populist income tax wrecked the economy. Teedy Roosevelt picked up the same cudgels and the Panic of 1907 popularized looterism. Wilson and Bryan worsened matters, Harding presided the prohibition Crash of 1920-23 which again ramped up communism, and Herb Hoover’s asset forfeiture brought the Crash, depression and 500% increase in communist party membership. Not everyone grasps inelasticity and fractional-reserve banking. But surely pattern-recognition has to kick in EVENTUALLY! Biden is a prohibitionist prig and Sanders would be a better adversary for the Prohi-GOP–and make the LP even more attractive. Small party votes increase after every crash.

  29. So I wanted to test a theory…. and jumped over to Jezebel.com.

    Surely the most virulently feminist woke site in the world would have something to say on the topic….

    Yeah…. Nope. Not yet anyway.

    They have a review of how rich people like Lebron James get to suffer self-quarantine in luxury. And they don’t seem to be terribly in love with Biden. They cover his vote for the Hyde amendment.

    And they have a post about trying to do the “Oops I Did it Again” choreography as a grownup.

    So they have that going for them.

    1. Well, that was just Jezebel. The largest woke site in the world surely has a fully fleshed-out take on this…

      So off to Huffpo.

      Yeah. Nope. Not a syllable. Plenty of articles about how Biden totally ripped Trump to shreds. And articles about how Trump unleashed a deadly plague on the world, killing millions.

      But nothing about this accusation.

      I suppose the difference here is that Blasey-Ford had Chuck Schumer coordinating with all of the major media outlets about how to handle the “leak” that was about to come from “anonymous sources” about Kavanaugh.

        1. CNN….

          Nope.

          And by nope… I mean they don’t even have coverage of her old story in the Intercept. Not a syllable.

          1. I know! The Atlantic! They’ve had no end of bizarre conspiracy theory coverage of Trump. They’ll dig in on…

            Yeah, no.

            Look Robby, I’m starting to think that your theory that the media is actually operating under some theory of “news” and “fairness” is just, well, delusional.

            1. Doing God’s work, Cyto.

          2. “CNN….”

            You’re joking…

      1. Well to be fair, Biden could drop dead and nobody would notice unless he died of coronavirus and they could blame Trump. Every time he opens his mouth all of the Alzheimer charities get a bump in donations. It’s best at this point that he remain incognito until the convention where he’ll graciously accept the nomination and be immediately whisked offstage while the crowd rises to sing America The Beautiful with Barbara Streisand in a glorious sea of balloons.

    1. Cuomo needs to save one life and a bunch of professors who obviously hate old people are not gonna stop him.

  30. Compared to what, 25 women who have accused Dear Leader of sexual assault I’d say this “Biden” character ranks as an amateur.

    1. “… this “Biden” character ranks as an amateur.”

      So far. We haven’t yet heard a MeToo comment on him.

      BTW, on the Iowa Electronic Markets, a legal money-betting operation (up to $500), Biden’s odds of getting the nomination have dropped sharply.

      1. At predictit, Andrew Cuomo is slowly rising as a potential Democratic nominee. (still a long shot). Weird times…

    2. Wow, bringing out the old socks. The flesh makes people crazy.

      1. My favorite one was when I used G1LMORE and that fucking asshole who posted under that name threatened to pursue discovery in pursuit of legal action. That was my favorite to be honest.

        1. American Socialist
          March.26.2020 at 10:32 pm
          “My favorite one was when I used G1LMORE and that fucking asshole who posted under that name threatened to pursue discovery in pursuit of legal action.”

          Sorry he didn’t scumbag. You deserve that an much, much more. Has your wife left you yet, and if not why not? Is she as fucking dishonest as you?

        2. Let’s hope this faggot dies of awuhan a virus as a soon as possible.

    3. American Socialist
      March.26.2020 at 8:20 pm
      “Compared to what, 25 women who have accused Dear Leader of sexual assault I’d say this “Biden” character ranks as an amateur.”

      Grow up, pay your goddam mortgage and fuck off, you slimy piece of lefty shit.

    4. “Compared to what, 25 women who have accused Dear Leader of sexual assault I’d say this “Biden” character ranks as an amateur.”

      Normally, I’d mention the lack of cites, but in your case, it’s simply symptomatic of raging stupidity and dishonesty.
      Fuck off and die. Slowly and painfully.

  31. 25 Reasons Joe Biden Shouldn’t Be President
    Matthew J. Dolezal, Mar 8 ·
    https://extranewsfeed.com/25-reasons-joe-biden-shouldnt-be-president-6036a87feb6d

    1. Luckily the author’s photo is at the bottom of that article. He looks exactly as I assumed he would look. It’s interesting to watch the left cannibalize itself.

      1. Matthew J. Dolezal:
        Socialist. Herbivore. Armchair comedian. I usually write about politics, but once in a while I’ll write a poem.

        Hilarious!

        1. Related to “Blackface” Rachel?

  32. I recall reading Sebastian Coe’s autobiography written right after he ran the 2012 London Olympics. He stated back in the 2010 winter games where he was an observer role Biden hit on a young women who work for the Vancouver Olympic Committee. So this behavior isn’t out of the norm for creepy Joe

  33. There’s a pattern here. The political party who says they’re so great about creating jobs and reducing deficits actually has a pretty consistent record of being absolute fuck-ups when it comes to unemployment and running stratospheric deficits. Oh, BTW, because of Trump and the temp agency asskissers who are running the CDC we’re now #1 in numbers of COVID cases. This government couldn’t run the daycare I send my kids to let alone an actual country.

    1. American Socialist
      March.26.2020 at 10:28 pm
      “There’s a pattern here…”

      Yes, there is. You’re a fucking slimy piece of lefty shit who lies.
      Fuck off and die; make the world a better and more intelligent place. And quit infecting your kids with your bullshit.

    2. If that’s the case, why do you support even more government? (Assuming your handle is accurate)

    3. Guess who would be number one in COVID-19 if Hilary or Bernie was president…the USA.

    4. We are also by far the largest country to be hit that I trust to give half-accurate numbers. Of course we are going to have far more than Italy. We have five times as many people to infect. Either do it by population or just compare us to the whole of the EU. We are well under either way.

      Also, don’t forget. Trump did initially request stronger quarantine measures, and was met with huge cries of “racism”.

      Finally. I don’t trust China’s numbers. AT ALL. It’s reminiscent of the Spanish Flu in 1918. Spain was actually one of the last major countries to get it, but the others were embroiled in WW1, so they refused to admit the outbreaks due to controls on news.

      1. As for the Chinese numbers, you stop finding new cases when you start shooting everyone with sniffles in the head.

    5. Yet, as an American Socialist, you *want* the government to run the country more than it is?

  34. “Both sides have a point.”
    To be sure.

  35. When something like this happens go directly to the police if you were sexually assaulted.

    Otherwise, no one can really do shit for you and if they do it’s because it benefits them.

  36. Now Google pays me $ 22,000 to $ 32,000 a month for work from home online. Last month I received $ 27,496 on my paypal online payroll. This task is online and very easy to do part time or even full time. No special experience is required for this job chek detail==► Read More

  37. See I’m going to give Robby a Kudo here, because I’m pretty sure no other reporter at Reason would be willing to cover a story like this.

  38. Going to stay consistent on this. If it happened in 1993 you made a choice it was not important enough to file a police report, sue or go public 27 years ago.

    In the same spirit as Blasey-Ford, you are definitely not credible if you emerge decades later with a claim at a political moment.

    1. This goes along with our fundamental system of justice. It’s why there are statutes of limitation.

      It’s also why victims/witnesses need to testify in a trial even if they were raped women or they are kids. It is sad as hell to see a kid testify about abuse but our system presumes the Defendant innocent. testimony is usually required to overcome that burden.

      It should be that way too. It’s the best system humans have come up with so far.

      1. “This goes along with our fundamental system of justice.”

        It seems to be about avoiding our system of justice and making direct appeals to the public. Rape victims can be subjected to humiliating ordeals at the hands of the justice system so it’s no surprise that women seek other venues.

        1. Rape victims can be subjected to humiliating ordeals at the hands of the justice system so it’s no surprise that women seek other venues.

          Rape suspects can be subjected to humiliating ordeals at the hands of the justice system so it’s no surprise that they insist on basic rights.

          1. “Rape suspects can be subjected to humiliating ordeals at the hands of the justice system ”

            They can also go to jail. Little wonder they don’t come forward and admit their deeds, even after decades pass.

    2. “In the same spirit as Blasey-Ford, you are definitely not credible if you emerge decades later with a claim at a political moment.”

      A political moment is the best time to bring down a groping politician. Would you have her wait until after he loses the election?

      1. A political moment is the best time to bring down a groping politician. Would you have her wait until after he loses the election?

        A political moment is the best time to bring down a groping politician. Would you have her wait until after he loses the erection?

    3. On the other hand, she was in reasonable fear of her job from a powerful boss (already a 20 year Senate veteran). She attempted to file a workplace complaint, but was shut down.

      Compare to the Ford complaint, where she was apparently scared of reprisal from a high schooler several towns over that she had never met before or since.

  39. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

  40. A lot of the same red flags from Kauvanaugh’s circus are present here, from her being part of the same lefty looney bin and also waiting 30 years to bring it up. Now, if she can actually find that official complaint or someone else who worked with her back then back her up, I’ll reconsider believing her. That being said, after the Dem’s stunt with Kavanaugh, and Biden’s stunt with Clarence Thomas in particular, fuck him. I hope he gets eaten alive by this.

    1. You bring up a point about political theater that I completely cannot understand.

      When Anita Hill broke into tears saying, “He said….. (tremble)… who put a pubic hair on my coke?!?!” everyone treated it as a serious and horrible revelation. A moment of terrible gravity…

      That is an irrational response. She’s an adult woman years removed from a joke – a joke by a black man about black hair, by the way, not about being a woman in the workplace.

      The rational response at that moment was incredulity “Wait, you are seriously crying about that joke, years later? You are seriously overcome with emotion about the though of a joke that isn’t even at your expense? What the hell is wrong with you??”

      Instead, we watched a bunch of grown men pretend that this was the most horrible accusation they had ever heard. And it was damning if you didn’t treat it with the utmost sensitivity. The very notion that Thomas wouldn’t bow down and apologize and immediately withdraw from public life was an insult to all right-thinking humans.

      It was absolutely insane. And there was not one person willing to say so. Not in the senate. Not on the evening news. Not on the Sunday pundit shows…

      1. pack mentality. It’s all pack/herd mentality. People will go along with stuff if everyone else is that they wouldn’t even dream of doing if they were by themselves. The politicians all do it because they know anyone who speaks up is gonna get ripped apart by the opposition, the press, and probably a few of their allies. Which affects how John Q Public sees the guy as well. It’s only when you get what the democrats have done, which is to push this to the extremity, to the point of ridiculousness, that people start pushing back in numbers. This is why you now have a chunk of the populace whose kneejerk reaction is to disagree with the Democrat position, even when the Dems are right about something (which isn’t too often). Those same people are still susceptible to herd mentality, they’re just less susceptible to it when it’s the Dems pushing it.

      2. “The very notion that Thomas wouldn’t bow down and apologize and immediately withdraw from public life was an insult to all right-thinking humans. ”

        He may not have apologized but at least the ordeal seems to have stopped Thomas from putting pubic hairs in the drinks of female associates.

        1. LOL

          There is something wrong with you. And I shouldn’t have laughed.

          1. “And I shouldn’t have laughed.”

            Why not? It’s about as funny as having a black man put his pubic hair in your drink.

  41. But this is different – – – – – –

  42. Sleepy Joe is pandering.

  43. The take down of Biden begins..
    Any party democrat watching his ‘briefings’ from his home over the last few days has to be terrified of what a Trump-Biden live national debate would look like.
    And with the Cuomo-for-president trending, the democrats are probably thinking this is the moment to seize a dark horse candidacy.
    To use a Trump comment – ‘What the hell do you have to lose’
    Nothing except the White House.

    1. With luck, Biden and Trump will be dead from COVID by summer.

  44. ★Makes $140 to $180 reliably online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am a bit by bit understudy and work basically one to a few hours in my extra time.Everybody will finish that commitment and monline akes additional money by just open this link….. Read More

  45. Biden is evil. See, for example, his support for the violence against women act.

    1. So he supports violence against women? Why am I not surprised.

  46. I have no respect for anyone who waits 20 or thirty years to make an accusation against another. Doesn’t matter which side of the political aisle they reside on.

  47. Think about how ironic this sexual harassment allegation is against presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden. If true, this is the same Joe Biden who authored 18 USC 2265 and the Violence Against Women Act that former President Bill Clinton passed in 1994. If true, can you say hypocrite?

  48. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you….. Read More  

  49. ★Makes $140 to $180 reliably online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am a bit by bit understudy and work basically one to a few hours in my extra time.Everybody will finish that commitment and monline akes additional money by just open this link….. Read More

  50. Still waiting for the massive outpouring of support from Hollywood and from the various media outlets that are so strong on sexual violence.
    5 days and counting.

    (also still waiting for my check)

  51. If true, Trump still did far worse.

  52. If he says he can’t recall, at least we know he is telling the truth on that score. The main difference between him and Trump is that Trump is more blatantly unfit for office, but with Biden, you have to look beneath the surface a little more. They are both crass people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.