Tweet
E. Jean Carroll has embraced her second amendment rights.
-
-
Not odd at all. The demokrats are not concerned with anything except winning the election. Right. Wrong. Justice. Whatever. It doesn't matter. The one and only thing on the table is the election. They will do whatever required, anything at all to win. It's that simple. Sincerely. bruce." Unlike most conservatives, libs have no problem exploiting dead children and dancing on their graves."Comment
-
And, lest we forget, O'l Bill Clinton was accused by dozens of women way before he was president. And, he "did not have sex with that woman".Comment
-
I suppose you believe her..that's the crap you read..She's wacko..
(Oops just saw dry heat also posted a reply to her post)..
Quote..there a gun on her bedside table?
“It’s loaded,” Carroll says. She picks up the revolver, which has a fake pearl handle, and waves it around. “I’ve always had a gun,” she says. “When I’m doing Skype calls with my friends, I like to pull it out. But I’ve never had it loaded. Not until now.”
Again, just another of the far left sites Togor reads, LolLast edited by rayg; 05-02-2020, 05:51.Comment
-
Anything that publishes something Ray doesn't like is considered "far left". The term is rendered meaningless.Comment
-
-
The "bias" claims always used to excuse publications of accounts that some people don't like, as in "I don't like that story therefore I'll claim publication bias." It's a logic fail because the claim of bias equally applies to the many publications that won't touch Trump sexual harassment stories with a ten foot pole. Bias in omission is still bias. What matters is whether or not a story gives a first hand account, and this one does.
The article itself describes how E. Jean Carroll found herself on the receiving end, unsolicited, of Donald Trump's phallus, and her experiences before and after she came forward.
True she comes across as something of a diletante on the subject of guns, but really when you strip away the NYC society veneer she's no different than a lot of bubbas. And the gun is of course not central to the story. But of course people skip over the part they want to pretend doesn't exist.Comment
-
you comment was she had embraced here 2nd amendment rights,
the article says she had had a firearm for a good while,
as in she may have embraced it , but that hug was long ago,
that was all the comment was about, what she and Trump did, etc etc is not relevant to your commentsComment
-
Fair enough, Ray.
Did some reading, found this quote by Biden's accuser:
"“President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity.”
As recently as 2017 she was tweeting nice things about Biden, then went for Bernie.
Comment
-
You didn't have to look that far. All of that is in the article I posted which was written for a very left magazine by a Andrew Sullivan, very liberal author. In fact a lot of leftie Democrats are starting to have some real buyer's remorse about Biden and like Sullivan are beginning to speak about it openly.
The point is the hypocrisy of the left. It didn't matter that Clarence Thomas and Anita hill seemed to be on very good terms until they weren't which event came with her being used to sandbag Thomas at his hearing.
There is a legal principal that if a witness lies in proceedings all of his/her subsequent testimony is tainted by it. Christine Blasey-Ford was proven to lied when she said she couldn't come to Washington by air to testify (she claimed fear of flying) despite being a frequent international flier, and that's the least of Blasey-Ford's problems as a witness.
Now, one straight up question. Do you believe the testimony of Hill and Blasey-Ford was enough to deny these men confirmation?Last edited by Art; 05-02-2020, 12:09.Comment
-
So Trump grabbed hold of the Woman's Cat. What's the big deal ?Comment
-
Just man's talk in a pvt conversation....any body here ever do such a terrible thing like that? and if so, you're also a very bad boy ...Lol
Last edited by rayg; 05-03-2020, 03:38.Comment
-
Hi Art,
With Kavanaugh, correct me if I'm wrong, but McConnell gave only a very short period of time for stuff to come out. He was not going to take that chance! And the FBI did not exactly leave no stone unturned.
Consequently the issue stands as you frame it...a couple of accounts from long ago, inconclusive, leading to a moot point because like Thomas, he's on the bench.
By contrast the Biden thing can tick tock away at its own pace between now and election day, to whatever end. And unlike with Kavanaugh, Republicans are in no hurry to turn the page on this one!
My point being that much of the strong reaction in the Kavanaugh matter was in response to McConnell's expedited timeline.
Added: if you google "Kavanaugh twisting in wind" you will be offered up a number of clips from Fox News, as that was the counter-narrative of the right back then. Yet substitute Biden's name for Kavanaugh and do the same search and nothing similar appears.
The simplest explanation to me is that this kind of past sexual stuff doesn't bother the right with their own people, but they're not above using it for mischief.Last edited by togor; 05-03-2020, 08:03.Comment
Comment