Many have shown hypocrisy occassionally, but there are a few that show hypocrisy very frequently and one is all over this thread.
I would implore the one or two posters on the left who haven't come out against Biden to do so. To say he should step down if he is in fact guilty. I think one of the posters your thinking of alluded to that. The right is being called hypocrites because they are on full attack against the left, throwing out the same accusation. It is quite preposterous to go after Biden when there are many on the right who refused to say Trump should be investigated or step down. Yes, both parties should condemn the cancerous members of their own, etc. At this point both sides are going at in a I know you are but what am I match, and I wish there was more conversation, but that requires both sides to pony up.
I think the confusion is, I do'nt see, at least here anyhow, anyone really going after Biden for this. I see them going after the dems pushing the #MeToo movement to be consistent. Ive seen a couple Right leaners say Biden is innocent until proven guilty.
That's debatable and dependent upon perspective. You think that Mags is hypocritical because he's all over the Tara Reade accusations, but supports a candidate who has a long history of abusive behavior towards women. Mags thinks that you're hypocritical because your reaction and level of proof demanded toward this accuser is way different than what you showed in Christine Blaise Ford's accusations about Kavanaugh.
Don't know if I officially came out against Biden, but fuck him. Guilty or not, I hope he steps down because he's a shit candidate.
And one of those is making numerous negative attacks on Biden. If one truly believes innocence until proven guilty then they shouldn't continue to make posts alluding to his guilt and let the process run its course.
He wasn't even in the forum during the Kavanaugh hearing. I was against kavanaugh mainly because of his policies and his demeanor. That hearing was a similar republican rigged hearing like the impeachment hearings where evidence was suppressed and witnesses prohibiting from testifying.
Sure there is. The process is that the media investigates, we chat about it, and eventually everyone decides what they think about it and the issue fades from view (or Biden fades from view, if enough people decide they don't believe him). barfo
If Biden is on the ticket, will you vote for him over Trump? This is much the same as when Trump rasn against Hilary and what the Reps said.... And got and continue to get blasted for it. Trump should drop out, but if he doesnt, anyone but Clinton. But now with the rolse reversed, its the same, regardless of the #metoo movement. Again, same narrative. Anyone but Trump, regardless of the #Metoo movement. This is the same philosophy some republicans had regarding Hilary. But the Republicans didn't push the #metoo movement, so shouldn't be held to the same standard. The narrative that you just quoted is anyone but Trump, regardless of the #metoo contradiction. This is what the republicans iv e seen have been pointing out.
Pretty sure that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has never applied in the long and colorful American history of trial by the press.
Where did i say Biden had been indicted? There also is a process right now as people have been investigating the allegations and i have no doubt trump, barr and the administration is digging as deep as they can
Fair point that Mags wasn't posting here during the Kavanaugh debate and probably didn't see what was posted here. I should have said that those on the right see the response by the left this time around as totally inconsistent, and therefore hypocritical with, what they were saying about a woman's right to be believed during the Kavanaugh issue.
I don't believe anyone said anything about a "woman's right to be believed"...big difference in the right to be heard vs the right to be believed because to be believed, there must be a certain level of credibility if not actual hard physical proof or witnesses. There really shouldn't be much of a comparison between the credibility of Ford vs Reade.
You were talking about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. While a nice sentiment that I wish more people applied in their views on the news, it's only directly applicable in criminal proceedings. And by process, I generally think of that in terms of a formal proceeding that can result in a conclusion about guilt or innocence. I don't think that the media "investigations" and endless debate in the twitterverse constitutes process.
And i told you what my position was for kavanaugh. Quit trying to make this about me and let mags defend himself.
