Cooked Crack Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Anything that'll trigger the moral majority is good with me. 😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Mark me down as not thrilled that we have to trust the next Presidential candidates not to take any information stolen by the Chinese because its not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 21 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Anything that'll trigger the moral majority is good with me. 😁 The legacy of the moral majority is the **** grabber. Everything they feared, they became themselves. Lost public debate on every major social issue and debased themselves at the end of it. A fitting conclusion to the worst bigots in the modern, developed world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 I'm liking Mayor Pete more and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Warhead36 said: I'm liking Mayor Pete more and more. He does have a nice smile, bit short for my tastes though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 18 minutes ago, twa said: He does have a nice smile, bit short for my tastes though. That and he can string two cogent sentences together without lying, insulting someone, or debasing himself. Also, he served honorably in Afghanistan as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy. I'm not sure whether he did that in spite of bone spurs though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Yikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 I know Biden likely wants to come off as "Mr. Moderate" but sheesh, laying it on a bit thick from the jump, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Biden is too old, really non-apologetic regarding his part in the Anita Hill debacle, and too corporate. Actually, the Dems in charge seem to have forgotten the 2018 election season already. There's a reason why so many Dems were elected with a large number of women in their numbers. They called out the Republicans in their districts. This needs to continue instead of falling back on the old tried and failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Mostly stopped posting polls but Beto being up was very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Looking at the Time Magazine photo at the top of the page, I'm struck by something so simple: It's 2019. We've never had a "First Gentleman". And somehow, the notion that it would be someone married to a gay man than someone married to a woman seems more palatable to America. If you'd told me in 2000 that we'd have a gay president before a female one I'd have laughed in your face. Now? I'll never underestimate this county's ability to discredit good, qualified women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said: Biden is too old, really non-apologetic regarding his part in the Anita Hill debacle, and too corporate. ....... Maybe, should he be?, and what does that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 41 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: ^^^Newest nominee for the Fed??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 8 minutes ago, Dan T. said: ^^^Newest nominee for the Fed??? Hopefully they've learned their lesson and actually vet Paperboy the Prince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Am I sold on UBI? Maybe, maybe not. But if you're looking for the opposite of Trump, here he is. An Asian man who likes math: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 2 hours ago, nonniey said: Maybe, should he be?, Do you think Joe Biden did right by Anita Hill? I'm sure you were fine with the line of questioning by your team and the end results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said: Do you think Joe Biden did right by Anita Hill? I'm sure you were fine with the line of questioning by your team and the end results. I was thinking it was a he said she said story (didn't follow hearings at the time) until Biden was attacked (by both sides for different reasons) and the details of the hearings were brought back up. It was actually a they said she said story. What was presented in the actual hearings doesn't reflect well on Hill and what was omitted (but known) to Biden and the rest of the committee reflected even worse on Hill (They didn't bring up the FBI interviews in the actual hearing). Biden told Specter he thought Hill was lying and I'm sure he still thinks that, but it would be political suicide for him to reiterate that belief in todays Democratic party. As for him doing right by her it seems to me he bent over backwards to prevent the hearing from being much worse than it could have gone for her. https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/28/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-in-1998-she-was-lying/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 47 minutes ago, nonniey said: I was thinking it was a he said she said story (didn't follow hearings at the time) until Biden was attacked (by both sides for different reasons) and the details of the hearings were brought back up. It was actually a they said she said story. What was presented in the actual hearings doesn't reflect well on Hill and what was omitted (but known) to Biden and the rest of the committee reflected even worse on Hill (They didn't bring up the FBI interviews in the actual hearing). Biden told Specter he thought Hill was lying and I'm sure he still thinks that, but it would be political suicide for him to reiterate that belief in todays Democratic party. As for him doing right by her it seems to me he bent over backwards to prevent the hearing from being much worse than it could have gone for her. https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/28/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-in-1998-she-was-lying/ ?? There's a good bit of evidence that Thomas AT LEAST lied about his knowledge of pornography. In addition, other women have/had said that Thomas has done inappropriate things to/with them in the same era (with friends backing up their story that they were told at the time). http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/02/the-case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas.html And some of this was known at the time (as described), but none of them were called to testify. (I can't find the article now, but at one point I saw a good article on this, and the gist of it was that Biden made agreements with Senate Republicans in terms of the nature and scope of the questioning/investigations. The Senate Republicans broke the agreement, but even after that Biden stuck to what he agreed to so for example, he didn't call witnesses to rebut what Thomas said about his history with pornography even though he had people telling him and willing to testify that Thomas was lying. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441790-bidens-role-in-anita-hill-hearings-defended-by-witness-not-allowed-to This article refers to the idea that Hill was supposed to testify first, and I believe that was one of the things that were agreed upon, but Thomas ended up testifying first. The impression I've always gotten was that Biden was out smarted or just wasn't willing to play as dirty as the Republicans.) Here's more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-was-in-charge-of-the-anita-hill-hearing-even-he-says-it-wasnt-fair/2019/04/26/a9a6f384-6500-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.12da30a4da0e "To cast doubt on her sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee planned to ask her about a former acquaintance named John Doggett, who said in an affidavit that Hill was prone to romantic delusions and had “a problem being rejected by men she was attracted to.” Doggett had not been vetted by the committee, as the rules of the hearing required, and Biden said it would be best not to air his claims until aides interviewed him. But as Republicans applied pressure, Biden was unsure what to do — changing his mind five times as colleagues, witnesses and a national television audience watched. “We will wait,” Biden said first, only to weigh in moments later with another idea: “Whatever the witness prefers.”" The Republicans were breaking the rule laid out for the hearing and rather than call them out on national tv, Biden left Hill out to dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 46 minutes ago, nonniey said: I was thinking it was a he said she said story (didn't follow hearings at the time) until Biden was attacked (by both sides for different reasons) and the details of the hearings were brought back up. It was actually a they said she said story. What was presented in the actual hearings doesn't reflect well on Hill and what was omitted (but known) to Biden and the rest of the committee reflected even worse on Hill (They didn't bring up the FBI interviews in the actual hearing). Biden told Specter he thought Hill was lying and I'm sure he still thinks that, but it would be political suicide for him to reiterate that belief in todays Democratic party. As for him doing right by her it seems to me he bent over backwards to prevent the hearing from being much worse than it could have gone for her. https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/28/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-in-1998-she-was-lying/ Your whole post is based from a Senator who was leading the charge on discrediting Hill. Biden could have called additional witnesses who had accusations against Thomas. He failed to that and tried to be cordial with Republicans. Big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 8 hours ago, Cooked Crack said: Mostly stopped posting polls but Beto being up was very interesting. All the top candidates can and should beat Trump with even an adequate campaign. Sadly, Warren polls worse than all of them which is what I’ve been saying about her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 2 hours ago, nonniey said: I was thinking it was a he said she said story (didn't follow hearings at the time) until Biden was attacked (by both sides for different reasons) and the details of the hearings were brought back up. It was actually a they said she said story. What was presented in the actual hearings doesn't reflect well on Hill and what was omitted (but known) to Biden and the rest of the committee reflected even worse on Hill (They didn't bring up the FBI interviews in the actual hearing). Biden told Specter he thought Hill was lying and I'm sure he still thinks that, but it would be political suicide for him to reiterate that belief in todays Democratic party. As for him doing right by her it seems to me he bent over backwards to prevent the hearing from being much worse than it could have gone for her. https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/28/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-in-1998-she-was-lying/ You must be out of your mind to think what you wrote. I was watching the hearings on Thomas because he was accused by others and it never went anywhere because he's a man. Believe me, women are so sick of this ****. We have only to see how any male candidate on the Democrat side gets more press, and more credibility than any woman candidate including a defeated Senate candidate and a mayor of a small city without national experience except serving as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan. Give me a ****ing break! Biden's condescending and pandering to Republicans was disgusting and that along with his corporate whoring and his age disqualifies him in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said: Your whole post is based from a Senator who was leading the charge on discrediting Hill. Biden could have called additional witnesses who had accusations against Thomas. He failed to that and tried to be cordial with Republicans. Big mistake. Actually the only thing that story got from Specter's book was that Specter stated that Biden told him in 1998 that he thought Hill was lying. The rest is public record. As for Specter saying Biden told him this - Biden never disputed it. So yeah I think Biden thought she was lying then and I think he still does (which may explain the reluctance to submit to the demands for an apology from the revisionists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 Warren polling worse... that any D would poll worse than Trump says more about the voters. Whats difference between her and Beto on policy? This country... SMDH.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.