Politics Tara Reade

Your track record kind of speaks for itself. You make a big noise, and then when it turns out you're completely wrong about something, you act like you were either joking or you flat out act like you never said anything.

 

I believe the "video" is really just the collection if clips of Biden being a little creepy with people. Because that obviously proves he's guilty of this, despite the fact that the facts don't line up consistently or accurately at all.

 

Biden needs to come out and angrily and forthrightly say:

"I like beer"

barfo

 

Yeah, but notice it says zero about him fingering her in the court document...nor did it actually accuse Biden himself of the harassment. And harassment does not = sexual harassment.

It also goes on to mention how she never mentioned sexual assault up until recently, when her initial story (which itself had holes in it) gained little traction.

it also points out how his mother (in the alleged Larry King interview) says her daughter didn't want to come forward with the allegation against him (of non consensual sexual assault) because she "respected" him too much.

Respected a man who forced his fingers into her vagina?

Her story has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

 

Make sure he aggressively asks the people interviewing him if they too like beer.

 

At the time Bob Packwood was being accused of sexual assault, and abuse. It's not like they would've ignored it.

And it doesn't trouble you in the least that her story has as many holes in it as it does? Or do you just like repeating the same mantra over and over because you think that makes you sound more knowledgeable about the subject?

Her story started off as harassment from the office of Biden, and that she was fired because she refused to serve drinks..but no she resigned..but no she was fired because she filed a complaint..but wait...the complaint won't have sexual harassment in it anywhere because she didn't know what to put down....and then when it came out she made it clear to the reporters that it *wasn't* about sexual assault of any sort. As did all of the people who she interviewed. They were all adamant that it was just him making her feel uncomfortable.

But then she changed it to sexual assault, and that she didn't wear panties that day (despite it being pretty much a dress code for senate workers that they had to wear panty hose if they were wearing dresses). And then she says it was in the tunnel under the senate and that no one would see her and that it was where she could see the exit...despite the fact that when the assault would've taken place there was no clear shot from where it happened to see the exit...

Look, I know you aren't interested in voting for him, but are you so insecure of your own candidate that you have to blindly stick by this pretty flimsy story?

I mean I know you can just stop posting about it and in your mind after 30 seconds, your slate has been wiped clean, but maybe, just maybe, you might want to accept that other people might have a firmer grasp on the facts than you.

 

Money makes for strange bedfellows.

How do you rectify the fact that she first stated it was harassment from the *office* of Joe Biden, to it was Joe Biden making an uncomfortable touch (that is the only believable thing), to then it was him finger banging her. And all the while her witnesses went from proclaiming it was not sexual to "ooh woops, it was sexual" the minute *AFTER* she changed her story?

Or that her version of the story doesn't jive with reality? Or that Joe has ZERO history of sexual assault? Or that McCain's team, Romney's team or any of the high ranking republicans, didn't find this shit out in 08 or 12? Or didn't find this out until it was pretty obvious he was going to become the nomination?

The mental gymnastics people have to go through to follow this story is pretty stellar.