Current Events > Why isn't the Tara Reade story getting more traction?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Time_Rider 04/28/20 9:58:30 AM #102:	Corrik7 posted... Call is August 11th 1993. Tara was employees from December 1993 to August 1993 when she says she was assaulted. Mother lived in Luis Olaspo (spelling?). Caller is from Luis Olaspo (spelling?). References daughter working until recently in Washington under a prominent senator. Reade worked under a prominent senator in Washington until just prior. Reade family has confirmed it is their mother's voice. Literally all of it is confirmed. You are arguing against facts. Your argument it isn't is based upon the Reade family is lying about their family member's voice from the grave who just coincidentally checks every checkbox for being the person. You also have corroborating evidence from her family members (which albeit they could lie). You also have corroborating evidence from her former coworker on the record. You also have corroborating evidence from her former neighbor on the record. Who also says she is a lifelong democrat and still voting for Biden despite the happening. There is much more corroborating evidence than Ford's claim. Both have zero evidence though. You're literally making most if that up, lol. Reade said it was her mother's voice. No one else said shit about it as far as I know. There is zero proof of this claim. Don't pretend like there is just to bolster your bad argument. --- I'm Amped to be here <cite>Time_Rider posted [p:938236578] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>Call is August 11th 1993. Tara was employees from December 1993 to August 1993 when she says she was assaulted. Mother lived in Luis Olaspo (spelling?). Caller is from Luis Olaspo (spelling?). References daughter working until recently in Washington under a prominent senator. Reade worked under a prominent senator in Washington until just prior. Reade family has confirmed it is their mother's voice. Literally all of it is confirmed. You are arguing against facts. Your argument it isn't is based upon the Reade family is lying about their family member's voice from the grave who just coincidentally checks every checkbox for being the person. You also have corroborating evidence from her family members (which albeit they could lie). You also have corroborating evidence from her former coworker on the record. You also have corroborating evidence from her former neighbor on the record. Who also says she is a lifelong democrat and still voting for Biden despite the happening. There is much more corroborating evidence than Ford's claim. Both have zero evidence though.</quote> You're literally making most if that up, lol. Reade said it was her mother's voice. No one else said shit about it as far as I know. There is zero proof of this claim. Don't pretend like there is just to bolster your bad argument. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 10:02:27 AM #103:	Coastal_elite posted... LMAO Yeah that's why all the anti-immigrant alt-right shit gets passed 5-4 lol. Have you forgotten about the woman doing the OK hand thing during his confirmation?It was all over the news, and in response... she doubled down on the OK'ing the next day (so, it had to be on purpose) Lol. "Kavanaugh aligned most closely with Roberts, as they both voted in the same direction in all but one of Kavanaughs first set of decisions. After Roberts, Kavanaugh voted in the same direction as Alito in all but two instances and Breyer in all but three instances. This places Kavanaugh in an interesting space that might, at least initially, not be as far to the right as some of his conservative allies on the court. To examine Kavanaughs voting alignments at a more granular level, we can look at his agreement levels with each of the individual justices. The justices are split into the liberal and conservative sets. The figures show when Kavanaugh was in the majority or dissent on the X-axis, and when each of the other justices was in the majority and dissent on the Y-axis. The justices votes are aligned when they are both in majority or dissent (quadrants four and two), and they are not aligned when one is in majority and the other is in dissent (quadrants one and three). Kavanaugh voted along the same lines as Breyer more often than with any of the other liberal justices on the Court, at almost 86 percent of the time so far this term. He then voted alongside Kagan in 81 percent of the decisions in which he participated. Kavanaugh next aligned with both Ginsburg and Sotomayor just over 76 percent of the time so far this term. These percentages of association with the liberal justices become even more meaningful when compared with the same figures for the conservative justices. Kavanaugh voted on the same side as Roberts more often than with any of the other justices, at approximately 95 percent of the time. He voted alongside Alito the next most often, at 90 percent of the time. The somewhat surprising finding is that he voted with Breyer more often than with Gorsuch or Thomas. He voted with Gorsuch in 80.95 percent of his votes, which is the same frequency of voting alignment he shared with Kagan. Kavanaugh voted equally least frequently with Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, all at just over 76 percent of the time." Alt-Right --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938236758] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Coastal_elite posted... </cite> <quote>LMAO Yeah that's why all the anti-immigrant alt-right shit gets passed 5-4 lol. Have you forgotten about the woman doing the OK hand thing during his confirmation?It was all over the news, and in response... she doubled down on the OK'ing the next day (so, it had to be on purpose)</quote>Lol. "Kavanaugh aligned most closely with Roberts, as they both voted in the same direction in all but one of Kavanaughs first set of decisions. After Roberts, Kavanaugh voted in the same direction as Alito in all but two instances and Breyer in all but three instances. This places Kavanaugh in an interesting space that might, at least initially, not be as far to the right as some of his conservative allies on the court. To examine Kavanaughs voting alignments at a more granular level, we can look at his agreement levels with each of the individual justices. The justices are split into the liberal and conservative sets. The figures show when Kavanaugh was in the majority or dissent on the X-axis, and when each of the other justices was in the majority and dissent on the Y-axis. The justices votes are aligned when they are both in majority or dissent (quadrants four and two), and they are not aligned when one is in majority and the other is in dissent (quadrants one and three). Kavanaugh voted along the same lines as Breyer more often than with any of the other liberal justices on the Court, at almost 86 percent of the time so far this term. He then voted alongside Kagan in 81 percent of the decisions in which he participated. Kavanaugh next aligned with both Ginsburg and Sotomayor just over 76 percent of the time so far this term. These percentages of association with the liberal justices become even more meaningful when compared with the same figures for the conservative justices. Kavanaugh voted on the same side as Roberts more often than with any of the other justices, at approximately 95 percent of the time. He voted alongside Alito the next most often, at 90 percent of the time. The somewhat surprising finding is that he voted with Breyer more often than with Gorsuch or Thomas. He voted with Gorsuch in 80.95 percent of his votes, which is the same frequency of voting alignment he shared with Kagan. Kavanaugh voted equally least frequently with Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, all at just over 76 percent of the time." Alt-Right </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkChozoGhost 04/28/20 10:04:14 AM #104:	I just came here to laugh at how people are pretended the Tara Reade story isn't gaining traction --- My sister's dog bit a hole in my Super Mario Land cartridge. It still works though - Skye Reynolds 3DS FC: 3239-5612-0115 <cite>DarkChozoGhost posted [p:938236832] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>I just came here to laugh at how people are pretended the Tara Reade story isn't gaining traction </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coastal_elite 04/28/20 10:04:19 AM #105:	Corrik7 posted... Lol. "Kavanaugh aligned most closely with Roberts, as they both voted in the same direction in all but one of Kavanaughs first set of decisions. After Roberts, Kavanaugh voted in the same direction as Alito in all but two instances and Breyer in all but three instances. This places Kavanaugh in an interesting space that might, at least initially, not be as far to the right as some of his conservative allies on the court. To examine Kavanaughs voting alignments at a more granular level, we can look at his agreement levels with each of the individual justices. The justices are split into the liberal and conservative sets. The figures show when Kavanaugh was in the majority or dissent on the X-axis, and when each of the other justices was in the majority and dissent on the Y-axis. The justices votes are aligned when they are both in majority or dissent (quadrants four and two), and they are not aligned when one is in majority and the other is in dissent (quadrants one and three). Kavanaugh voted along the same lines as Breyer more often than with any of the other liberal justices on the Court, at almost 86 percent of the time so far this term. He then voted alongside Kagan in 81 percent of the decisions in which he participated. Kavanaugh next aligned with both Ginsburg and Sotomayor just over 76 percent of the time so far this term. These percentages of association with the liberal justices become even more meaningful when compared with the same figures for the conservative justices. Kavanaugh voted on the same side as Roberts more often than with any of the other justices, at approximately 95 percent of the time. He voted alongside Alito the next most often, at 90 percent of the time. The somewhat surprising finding is that he voted with Breyer more often than with Gorsuch or Thomas. He voted with Gorsuch in 80.95 percent of his votes, which is the same frequency of voting alignment he shared with Kagan. Kavanaugh voted equally least frequently with Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, all at just over 76 percent of the time." Alt-Right Yes, he plays possum on regular cases. But when it comes to alt right stuff, votes about race, immigration, abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc, he shows his true colors <cite>Coastal_elite posted [p:938236837] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>Lol. "Kavanaugh aligned most closely with Roberts, as they both voted in the same direction in all but one of Kavanaughs first set of decisions. After Roberts, Kavanaugh voted in the same direction as Alito in all but two instances and Breyer in all but three instances. This places Kavanaugh in an interesting space that might, at least initially, not be as far to the right as some of his conservative allies on the court. To examine Kavanaughs voting alignments at a more granular level, we can look at his agreement levels with each of the individual justices. The justices are split into the liberal and conservative sets. The figures show when Kavanaugh was in the majority or dissent on the X-axis, and when each of the other justices was in the majority and dissent on the Y-axis. The justices votes are aligned when they are both in majority or dissent (quadrants four and two), and they are not aligned when one is in majority and the other is in dissent (quadrants one and three). Kavanaugh voted along the same lines as Breyer more often than with any of the other liberal justices on the Court, at almost 86 percent of the time so far this term. He then voted alongside Kagan in 81 percent of the decisions in which he participated. Kavanaugh next aligned with both Ginsburg and Sotomayor just over 76 percent of the time so far this term. These percentages of association with the liberal justices become even more meaningful when compared with the same figures for the conservative justices. Kavanaugh voted on the same side as Roberts more often than with any of the other justices, at approximately 95 percent of the time. He voted alongside Alito the next most often, at 90 percent of the time. The somewhat surprising finding is that he voted with Breyer more often than with Gorsuch or Thomas. He voted with Gorsuch in 80.95 percent of his votes, which is the same frequency of voting alignment he shared with Kagan. Kavanaugh voted equally least frequently with Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, all at just over 76 percent of the time." Alt-Right</quote> Yes, he plays possum on regular cases. But when it comes to alt right stuff, votes about race, immigration, abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc, he shows his true colors </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coastal_elite 04/28/20 10:06:39 AM #106:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FBc0VaUdY8 <cite>Coastal_elite posted [p:938236950] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FBc0VaUdY8 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 10:08:31 AM #107:	Time_Rider posted... You're literally making most if that up, lol. Reade said it was her mother's voice. No one else said shit about it as far as I know. There is zero proof of this claim. Don't pretend like there is just to bolster your bad argument. The video is dated. Her employment is dated. Her property records show her mother as living in the location of the called at the time period. And her family has confirmed her voice. There is literally nothing to debate about any of that. That is all factual. It is corroborating evidence. Not actual evidence however. It just means Tara has told this story before since 1993. Not that it happened. This is more corroborating evidence than Ford had. Yes. Nothing made up there. All confirmable facts. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938237019] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Time_Rider posted... </cite> <quote>You're literally making most if that up, lol. Reade said it was her mother's voice. No one else said shit about it as far as I know. There is zero proof of this claim. Don't pretend like there is just to bolster your bad argument.</quote>The video is dated. Her employment is dated. Her property records show her mother as living in the location of the called at the time period. And her family has confirmed her voice. There is literally nothing to debate about any of that. That is all factual. It is corroborating evidence. Not actual evidence however. It just means Tara has told this story before since 1993. Not that it happened. This is more corroborating evidence than Ford had. Yes. Nothing made up there. All confirmable facts. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Time_Rider 04/28/20 10:12:32 AM #108:	Corrik7 posted... The video is dated. Her employment is dated. Her property records show her mother as living in the location of the called at the time period. And her family has confirmed her voice. There is literally nothing to debate about any of that. That is all factual. It is corroborating evidence. Not actual evidence however. It just means Tara has told this story before since 1993. Not that it happened. This is more corroborating evidence than Ford had. Yes. Nothing made up there. All confirmable facts. So why did you have to lie about her entire family confirming it? When they didn't lol. You are wrong, none of that confirms anything. Again, I'm not saying either way - it probably is her mother, 100%. I'm pointing out that you aren't bring honest about this being confirmed and proven. It has not been. No matter how much you repeat yourself, that won't change. --- I'm Amped to be here <cite>Time_Rider posted [p:938237217] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>The video is dated. Her employment is dated. Her property records show her mother as living in the location of the called at the time period. And her family has confirmed her voice. There is literally nothing to debate about any of that. That is all factual. It is corroborating evidence. Not actual evidence however. It just means Tara has told this story before since 1993. Not that it happened. This is more corroborating evidence than Ford had. Yes. Nothing made up there. All confirmable facts.</quote> So why did you have to lie about her entire family confirming it? When they didn't lol. You are wrong, none of that confirms anything. Again, I'm not saying either way - it probably is her mother, 100%. I'm pointing out that you aren't bring honest about this being confirmed and proven. It has not been. No matter how much you repeat yourself, that won't change. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 10:16:20 AM #109:	Time_Rider posted... So why did you have to lie about her entire family confirming it? When they didn't lol. You are wrong, none of that confirms anything. Again, I'm not saying either way - it probably is her mother, 100%. I'm pointing out that you aren't bring honest about this being confirmed and proven. It has not been. No matter how much you repeat yourself, that won't change. I didn't lie about anything. Her family has confirmed her voice. What are you talking about? You are literally playing a game right now. "Hey, it probably is her. 100%. But you know there could be another person in the world who called in at exactly the right time of the situation, lived in exactly the same county as the alleger's mother, with a voice close enough to make the family think it was her's!" Like, that is where you are at. I mean, sure. Lol. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938237365] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Time_Rider posted... </cite> <quote>So why did you have to lie about her entire family confirming it? When they didn't lol. You are wrong, none of that confirms anything. Again, I'm not saying either way - it probably is her mother, 100%. I'm pointing out that you aren't bring honest about this being confirmed and proven. It has not been. No matter how much you repeat yourself, that won't change.</quote>I didn't lie about anything. Her family has confirmed her voice. What are you talking about? You are literally playing a game right now. "Hey, it probably is her. 100%. But you know there could be another person in the world who called in at exactly the right time of the situation, lived in exactly the same county as the alleger's mother, with a voice close enough to make the family think it was her's!" Like, that is where you are at. I mean, sure. Lol. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Shablagoo 04/28/20 10:19:29 AM #110:	COVxy posted... Naw, mostly because her story involves her being openly assaulted in a public area with a Joe Biden so deeply confused as to think it was consensual, and then so unaware of his surroundings that he then lashed out on her Yeah because neither of these things have happened over and over again on video with Biden and a large swathe of people. --- "It was some post on the NFL board that got him." -AwesomeToTheMAX <cite>Shablagoo posted [p:938237494] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted... </cite> <quote>Naw, mostly because her story involves her being openly assaulted in a public area with a Joe Biden so deeply confused as to think it was consensual, and then so unaware of his surroundings that he then lashed out on her</quote> Yeah because neither of these things have happened over and over again on video with Biden and a large swathe of people. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Time_Rider 04/28/20 10:20:03 AM #111:	Corrik7 posted... I didn't lie about anything. Her family has confirmed her voice. What are you talking about? You are literally playing a game right now. "Hey, it probably is her. 100%. But you know there could be another person in the world who called in at exactly the right time of the situation, lived in exactly the same county as the alleger's mother, with a voice close enough to make the family think it was her's!" Like, that is where you are at. I mean, sure. Lol. What don't you understand? You are being dishonest about it being confirmed. It is not, not matter how much you repeat it And why do you keep saying her family confirmed it with no source? I know Reade herself said it was her mom but you need more than the alleged victims story with this. Now you're making me repeat myself, ironically. --- I'm Amped to be here <cite>Time_Rider posted [p:938237511] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>I didn't lie about anything. Her family has confirmed her voice. What are you talking about? You are literally playing a game right now. "Hey, it probably is her. 100%. But you know there could be another person in the world who called in at exactly the right time of the situation, lived in exactly the same county as the alleger's mother, with a voice close enough to make the family think it was her's!" Like, that is where you are at. I mean, sure. Lol.</quote> What don't you understand? You are being dishonest about it being confirmed. It is not, not matter how much you repeat it And why do you keep saying her family confirmed it with no source? I know Reade herself said it was her mom but you need more than the alleged victims story with this. Now you're making me repeat myself, ironically. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 10:24:54 AM #112:	Time_Rider posted... What don't you understand? You are being dishonest about it being confirmed. It is not, not matter how much you repeat it And why do you keep saying her family confirmed it with no source? I know Reade herself said it was her mom but you need more than the alleged victims story with this. Now you're making me repeat myself, ironically. I get it, bud. I truly do. You need to argue a little convenient timing doppelganger theory in order for it not to be confirmed in your eyes because you need a seed of doubt to justify it to yourself. Now compare that to Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh. Did the left toss out convenient doppelganger theories and such to try and seed any percentage of doubt possibly to corroboration? Or was it... BelieveSurvivors. The hypocrisy is blatant regarding it. Now, people probably should have doubted Ford's story a lot more than they did. She had no evidence. She had very flimsy corroborating evidence. Reade's corroborating evidence is better but it doesn't confirm really anything as far as the allegation goes either. It is the way the Ford story was treated in relation that is the hypocrisy. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938237696] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Time_Rider posted... </cite> <quote>What don't you understand? You are being dishonest about it being confirmed. It is not, not matter how much you repeat it And why do you keep saying her family confirmed it with no source? I know Reade herself said it was her mom but you need more than the alleged victims story with this. Now you're making me repeat myself, ironically.</quote>I get it, bud. I truly do. You need to argue a little convenient timing doppelganger theory in order for it not to be confirmed in your eyes because you need a seed of doubt to justify it to yourself. Now compare that to Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh. Did the left toss out convenient doppelganger theories and such to try and seed any percentage of doubt possibly to corroboration? Or was it... BelieveSurvivors. The hypocrisy is blatant regarding it. Now, people probably should have doubted Ford's story a lot more than they did. She had no evidence. She had very flimsy corroborating evidence. Reade's corroborating evidence is better but it doesn't confirm really anything as far as the allegation goes either. It is the way the Ford story was treated in relation that is the hypocrisy. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Time_Rider 04/28/20 10:27:03 AM #113:	Corrik7 posted... I get it, bud. I truly do. You need to argue a little convenient timing doppelganger theory in order for it not to be confirmed in your eyes because you need a seed of doubt to justify it to yourself. Now compare that to Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh. Did the left toss out convenient doppelganger theories and such to try and seed any percentage of doubt possibly to corroboration? Or was it... BelieveSurvivors. The hypocrisy is blatant regarding it. Now, people probably should have doubted Ford's story a lot more than they did. She had no evidence. She had very flimsy corroborating evidence. Reade's corroborating evidence is better but it doesn't confirm really anything as far as the allegation goes either. It is the way the Ford story was treated in relation that is the hypocrisy. Defection! Couldn't source your claim that you made up. So you went way off topic. Spoiler alert: I believe them both, so you're wasting your time on this dodge. Bet you didn't see that coming. You thought for sure I was against this allegation, lol. The only thing I am against is people like you lying about evidence. It does no good. Don't say shit was confirmed that literally wasn't. --- I'm Amped to be here <cite>Time_Rider posted [p:938237781] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>I get it, bud. I truly do. You need to argue a little convenient timing doppelganger theory in order for it not to be confirmed in your eyes because you need a seed of doubt to justify it to yourself. Now compare that to Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh. Did the left toss out convenient doppelganger theories and such to try and seed any percentage of doubt possibly to corroboration? Or was it... BelieveSurvivors. The hypocrisy is blatant regarding it. Now, people probably should have doubted Ford's story a lot more than they did. She had no evidence. She had very flimsy corroborating evidence. Reade's corroborating evidence is better but it doesn't confirm really anything as far as the allegation goes either. It is the way the Ford story was treated in relation that is the hypocrisy.</quote> Defection! Couldn't source your claim that you made up. So you went way off topic. Spoiler alert: I believe them both, so you're wasting your time on this dodge. Bet you didn't see that coming. You thought for sure I was against this allegation, lol. The only thing I am against is people like you lying about evidence. It does no good. Don't say shit was confirmed that literally wasn't. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 04/28/20 10:29:33 AM #114:	it's weird how a lot of people who seem so passionate about this story seem hung up on the kavanaugh thing hmmm --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:938237879] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>it's weird how a lot of people who seem so passionate about this story seem hung up on the kavanaugh thing hmmm </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Time_Rider 04/28/20 10:29:58 AM #115:	Doom_Art posted... it's weird how a lot of people who seem so passionate about this story seem hung up on the kavanaugh thing hmmm Says a lot tbh. --- I'm Amped to be here <cite>Time_Rider posted [p:938237895] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Doom_Art posted... </cite> <quote>it's weird how a lot of people who seem so passionate about this story seem hung up on the kavanaugh thing hmmm</quote> Says a lot tbh. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 10:33:28 AM #116:	Doom_Art posted... it's weird how a lot of people who seem so passionate about this story seem hung up on the kavanaugh thing hmmm Yeah, some people expect consistency in ideals for people who truly believe them. Not to only have supposed such ideals when it is convenient for themself. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938238018] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Doom_Art posted... </cite> <quote>it's weird how a lot of people who seem so passionate about this story seem hung up on the kavanaugh thing hmmm</quote>Yeah, some people expect consistency in ideals for people who truly believe them. Not to only have supposed such ideals when it is convenient for themself. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Talk2DaHand 04/28/20 10:41:48 AM #117:	Whoops --- "The wise speak only of what they know." - J.R.R. Tolkien <cite>Talk2DaHand posted [p:938238392] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote> Whoops </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 04/28/20 10:43:05 AM #118:	https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1254999854222159872 --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:938238448] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1254999854222159872 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 10:46:16 AM #119:	https://twitter.com/leeladaou/status/1255105676545851392?s=20 Yep. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938238601] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/leeladaou/status/1255105676545851392?s=20 Yep. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 04/28/20 10:48:04 AM #120:	alls i'm saying is after franken/kav i understand why the party just doesn't give a crap anymore --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:938238703] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>alls i'm saying is after franken/kav i understand why the party just doesn't give a crap anymore </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bestoffuture 04/28/20 11:07:20 AM #121:	Doom_Art posted... alls i'm saying is after franken/kav i understand why the party just doesn't give a crap anymore They got rid of Franken, tho. --- Proud leader of the PeyPals "I don't take any responsibility at all."- President Donald J. Trump <cite>Bestoffuture posted [p:938239639] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Doom_Art posted... </cite> <quote>alls i'm saying is after franken/kav i understand why the party just doesn't give a crap anymore</quote> They got rid of Franken, tho. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexenherz 04/28/20 11:16:22 AM #122:	And the other thing with the call - correct me if I'm wrong - is that it's just very general; she never outright says that anyone was assaulted, just that she was experiencing problems with a prominent Senator. To me, that would, at a minimum, corroborate Reade's allegations that he kissed her/caressed her hair uncomfortably, but it doesn't corroborate the recent sexual assault allegations. I don't know, like I said, it could very well be true, and of course I advocate an investigation into the allegations, but the phone call doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards to the sexual assault allegations specifically. --- FFXIV: Lucius Hexenseele (Brynhildr) \| RS3: UltimaSuende . 99 WC/Fish/Cook/Fletch/Div/Mining/Smithing/Thieving/Crafting https://letterboxd.com/BMovieBro/ <cite>Hexenherz posted [p:938240087] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>And the other thing with the call - correct me if I'm wrong - is that it's just very general; she never outright says that anyone was assaulted, just that she was experiencing problems with a prominent Senator. To me, that would, at a minimum, corroborate Reade's allegations that he kissed her/caressed her hair uncomfortably, but it doesn't corroborate the recent sexual assault allegations. I don't know, like I said, it could very well be true, and of course I advocate an investigation into the allegations, but the phone call doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards to the sexual assault allegations specifically. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Time_Rider 04/28/20 11:30:49 AM #123:	Hexenherz posted... And the other thing with the call - correct me if I'm wrong - is that it's just very general; she never outright says that anyone was assaulted, just that she was experiencing problems with a prominent Senator. To me, that would, at a minimum, corroborate Reade's allegations that he kissed her/caressed her hair uncomfortably, but it doesn't corroborate the recent sexual assault allegations. I don't know, like I said, it could very well be true, and of course I advocate an investigation into the allegations, but the phone call doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards to the sexual assault allegations specifically. Yep. Corrik was lying when he said this was "confirmed" evidence. It's literally not. It's a really stupid instance to try to use as proof in this case. The real evidence came yesterday when one of Reade's old friends spoke up. That's when I was convinced that this occurred. --- I'm Amped to be here <cite>Time_Rider posted [p:938240804] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Hexenherz posted... </cite> <quote>And the other thing with the call - correct me if I'm wrong - is that it's just very general; she never outright says that anyone was assaulted, just that she was experiencing problems with a prominent Senator. To me, that would, at a minimum, corroborate Reade's allegations that he kissed her/caressed her hair uncomfortably, but it doesn't corroborate the recent sexual assault allegations. I don't know, like I said, it could very well be true, and of course I advocate an investigation into the allegations, but the phone call doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards to the sexual assault allegations specifically.</quote> Yep. Corrik was lying when he said this was "confirmed" evidence. It's literally not. It's a really stupid instance to try to use as proof in this case. The real evidence came yesterday when one of Reade's old friends spoke up. That's when I was convinced that this occurred. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 12:14:07 PM #124:	Time_Rider posted... Yep. Corrik was lying when he said this was "confirmed" evidence. It's literally not. It's a really stupid instance to try to use as proof in this case. The real evidence came yesterday when one of Reade's old friends spoke up. That's when I was convinced that this occurred. None of that is real evidence. It is corroborating evidence. I also said exactly what hex said in his post. Only lying here is done by you. Not surprisingly. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938242956] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Time_Rider posted... </cite> <quote>Yep. Corrik was lying when he said this was "confirmed" evidence. It's literally not. It's a really stupid instance to try to use as proof in this case. The real evidence came yesterday when one of Reade's old friends spoke up. That's when I was convinced that this occurred.</quote>None of that is real evidence. It is corroborating evidence. I also said exactly what hex said in his post. Only lying here is done by you. Not surprisingly. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 12:16:24 PM #125:	Corrik7 posted... It is confirmed to be her mother. From location she lived (where she lived at the time), time period of call (right after alleged events), and by voice. The call isn't in doubt from being her mother. The only thing in doubt about the call is whether it is in regards to sexual assault or something else her daughter might have gone to the press over and whether the events she is calling about actually happened or if she just made up a story to her mother. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938243079] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>It is confirmed to be her mother. From location she lived (where she lived at the time), time period of call (right after alleged events), and by voice. The call isn't in doubt from being her mother. The only thing in doubt about the call is whether it is in regards to sexual assault or something else her daughter might have gone to the press over and whether the events she is calling about actually happened or if she just made up a story to her mother.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Time_Rider 04/28/20 12:16:33 PM #126:	Corrik7 posted... None of that is real evidence. It is corroborating evidence. I also said exactly what hex said in his post. Only lying here is done by you. Not surprisingly. Hahaha, no you didn't. You literally painted the CNN call as real evidence. Then you fled when you realized you were wrong and I wasn't fighting against this allegation. The friend's story is fucking a thousand times more useful evidence than the CNN call that you lied about being confirmed. Edit: he doubled down and re copies his false take, lol. Literally none of that is true. Why lie about saying family members who aren't the victim themselves confirmed this? --- I'm Amped to be here <cite>Time_Rider posted [p:938243089] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>None of that is real evidence. It is corroborating evidence. I also said exactly what hex said in his post. Only lying here is done by you. Not surprisingly.</quote> Hahaha, no you didn't. You literally painted the CNN call as real evidence. Then you fled when you realized you were wrong and I wasn't fighting against this allegation. The friend's story is fucking a thousand times more useful evidence than the CNN call that you lied about being confirmed. Edit: he doubled down and re copies his false take, lol. Literally none of that is true. Why lie about saying family members who aren't the victim themselves confirmed this? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 12:20:37 PM #127:	Time_Rider posted... Hahaha, no you didn't. You literally painted the CNN call as real evidence. Then you fled when you realized you were wrong and I wasn't fighting against this allegation. undefined posted... It is confirmed to be her mother. From location she lived (where she lived at the time), time period of call (right after alleged events), and by voice. The call isn't in doubt from being her mother. The only thing in doubt about the call is whether it is in regards to sexual assault or something else her daughter might have gone to the press over and whether the events she is calling about actually happened or if she just made up a story to her mother. The moment a troll self-owns himself and it all caves in around him. Thanks for making a mockery of yourself. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938243276] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Time_Rider posted... </cite> <quote>Hahaha, no you didn't. You literally painted the CNN call as real evidence. Then you fled when you realized you were wrong and I wasn't fighting against this allegation.</quote> undefined posted... </cite> <quote>It is confirmed to be her mother. From location she lived (where she lived at the time), time period of call (right after alleged events), and by voice. The call isn't in doubt from being her mother. The only thing in doubt about the call is whether it is in regards to sexual assault or something else her daughter might have gone to the press over and whether the events she is calling about actually happened or if she just made up a story to her mother.</quote> The moment a troll self-owns himself and it all caves in around him. Thanks for making a mockery of yourself. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 04/28/20 12:25:50 PM #128:	Hexenherz posted... And the other thing with the call - correct me if I'm wrong - is that it's just very general; she never outright says that anyone was assaulted, just that she was experiencing problems with a prominent Senator. To me, that would, at a minimum, corroborate Reade's allegations that he kissed her/caressed her hair uncomfortably, but it doesn't corroborate the recent sexual assault allegations. I don't know, like I said, it could very well be true, and of course I advocate an investigation into the allegations, but the phone call doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards to the sexual assault allegations specifically. So, anyways, back to your question and ignoring the dude trolling. That is correct. It could mean something else. We just know she is referring to something that couldn't be resolved other than "going to the press" over. Usually little things like your boss was mean to you or something isn't something you would go to the press over or would be pressworthy. So, it is assumed she means something pressworthy to report. That said, we also don't know for sure that this wasn't just a story she made up to her mother. For example, maybe she got let go for some other reason, was embarrassed, and made up a story to her family and people around her to save face. That is 100% a possibility. That is why they asked for a release of records to see the complaint she filed. The one manager said there was never a complaint filed to my recollection. When the media asked for access to the records to find it, they were told the records would not be released until 2 years after Biden retires. To my recollection again. So, that is where we are. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:938243538] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Hexenherz posted... </cite> <quote>And the other thing with the call - correct me if I'm wrong - is that it's just very general; she never outright says that anyone was assaulted, just that she was experiencing problems with a prominent Senator. To me, that would, at a minimum, corroborate Reade's allegations that he kissed her/caressed her hair uncomfortably, but it doesn't corroborate the recent sexual assault allegations. I don't know, like I said, it could very well be true, and of course I advocate an investigation into the allegations, but the phone call doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards to the sexual assault allegations specifically.</quote>So, anyways, back to your question and ignoring the dude trolling. That is correct. It could mean something else. We just know she is referring to something that couldn't be resolved other than "going to the press" over. Usually little things like your boss was mean to you or something isn't something you would go to the press over or would be pressworthy. So, it is assumed she means something pressworthy to report. That said, we also don't know for sure that this wasn't just a story she made up to her mother. For example, maybe she got let go for some other reason, was embarrassed, and made up a story to her family and people around her to save face. That is 100% a possibility. That is why they asked for a release of records to see the complaint she filed. The one manager said there was never a complaint filed to my recollection. When the media asked for access to the records to find it, they were told the records would not be released until 2 years after Biden retires. To my recollection again. So, that is where we are. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Time_Rider 04/28/20 12:27:58 PM #129:	Corrik7 posted... The moment a troll self-owns himself and it all caves in around him. Thanks for making a mockery of yourself. But it's not confirmed to be her You're lying. And continue to after getting called out. You need to learn how to argue your point, and back down when you are wrong. Literally doubling down on being wrong. Unbelievable. --- I'm Amped to be here <cite>Time_Rider posted [p:938243647] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted... </cite> <quote>The moment a troll self-owns himself and it all caves in around him. Thanks for making a mockery of yourself. </quote> But it's not confirmed to be her You're lying. And continue to after getting called out. You need to learn how to argue your point, and back down when you are wrong. Literally doubling down on being wrong. Unbelievable. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EnragedSlith 04/28/20 12:42:18 PM #130:	Again, this is bullshit. Everyone knows it. Republicans and certain liberals are pushing it because it creates controversy. Just like Democrats pushed that Ford thing with Kavanaugh. The precedent you'd set by convicting a person based on a single witness's testimony from decades before, it's simply unfeasible. With the lack of evidence, you're forced to rely on a character trial: is there a traceable history of this behavior; what's the accuser gain by coming forward now; why did they wait; is the accuser mentally stable; etc. And there's no real enforceable outcome without a massive break. They're simply giving this woman attention because the media circus works to their benefit. --- ultimate milf hunter https://imgur.com/lCEdce6 https://imgur.com/2N1Ezia https://imgur.com/ukJ6sPJ https://youtu.be/IDYaHvDiTr4 <cite>EnragedSlith posted [p:938244330] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>Again, this is bullshit. Everyone knows it. Republicans and certain liberals are pushing it because it creates controversy. Just like Democrats pushed that Ford thing with Kavanaugh. The precedent you'd set by convicting a person based on a single witness's testimony from decades before, it's simply unfeasible. With the lack of evidence, you're forced to rely on a character trial: is there a traceable history of this behavior; what's the accuser gain by coming forward now; why did they wait; is the accuser mentally stable; etc. And there's no real enforceable outcome without a massive break. They're simply giving this woman attention because the media circus works to their benefit. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 04/28/20 12:46:07 PM #131:	#NeverBelieveWomen --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:938244531] in Why isn't ... [t:78627818]...</cite> <quote>#NeverBelieveWomen</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Why isn't the Tara Reade story getting more traction? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Why isn't the Tara Reade story getting more traction?