Orange defense
Blood runneth orange in my veins
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2017
- Messages
- 10,876
- Likes
- 12,473
Well its because the mantra "believe all women" only applies when it benefits them or their political beliefs. Their only defense is to remain silent, sort of like how a kid closes his eyes and pretends if he cant see something its going to be fine.I've noticed the staunch libs like @evillawyer and @bnhunt @luthervol have stayed away from this thread. And with Rose Mcgowen putting the DNC on blast this morning and calling them what they really are, evil, they can't even deny how the media protects them now. It is a fact the NYT and WaPo are mouthpieces for the Democrats and there is no way for them to say different now.
Who are you trying to convince you didn't start this thread because of your own partisanship?You mistake me as someone who votes for the GOP. I am here because of the hatred of the Democrats.
The GOP is stupid, the Democrats are evil. That much is a fact.
Any comment on voting for a serial sexual predator like Biden that the media is excusing his behavior?
I'm perfectly fine voting for Biden. If he only has one thing going for his and that being, not acting like a little girl on Twitter, it's enough.But but but what about this guy?
Question for you, are you OK voting for Biden knowing the media will protect him from sexually assaulting women? Man, Rose McGowen was right on about the evil living in the DNC.
I'm partisan against evil like the DNC and all Democrats. I don't care about the GOP.Who are you trying to convince you didn't start this thread because of your own partisanship?
I've noticed the staunch libs like @evillawyer and @bnhunt @luthervol have stayed away from this thread. And with Rose Mcgowen putting the DNC on blast this morning and calling them what they really are, evil, they can't even deny how the media protects them now.
It is a fact the NYT and WaPo are mouthpieces for the Democrats and there is no way for them to say different now.
You know it is..thats why he can barley articulate a coherent sentence during his awkward interviews.It’s hard for Joe to sniff at little girls while hunkered down in his basement, it’s probably driving him insane.
At least Trump goes after the good looking ones.Is it something new that anyone should care of a Presidential candidate assaults women? Besides we know it's not true, heck they're ugly.
Is it something new that anyone should care of a Presidential candidate assaults women? Besides we know it's not true, heck they're ugly.
So all of the reposting of tweets containing those phrases and adding your own commentary is obvious support, however you didn’t actually say it.I challenge anybody to find where I, or any of the other liberal posters here, said "Believe all women." You guys are attacking a strawman.
They are both showing poor behavior. Both sides should shut up about it being some kind of deal breaking measuring stick. Get back to talking about implementing programs/agendas that are best for the people of this country.Remember when the Republicans were all "We're morally superior to you. We loves us some baby Jesus, we tithe to our snake oil salesmen every Sunday, and don't use four-letter words." Now, they're like, "Ha, Ha, you see, you see. Your guy maybe, just maybe, did something once that our guy is accused of doing like 25 times. Moral equivalence! Moral equivalence!"
Or to rephrase what you said. Your elitist old white guys immoral behavior isn’t as bad as our elitist old white guys immoral behavior.Remember when the Republicans were all "We're morally superior to you. We loves us some baby Jesus, we tithe to our snake oil salesmen every Sunday, and don't use four-letter words." Now, they're like, "Ha, Ha, you see, you see. Your guy maybe, just maybe, did something once that our guy is accused of doing like 25 times. Moral equivalence! Moral equivalence!"
Remember when the Republicans were all "We're morally superior to you. We loves us some baby Jesus, we tithe to our snake oil salesmen every Sunday, and don't use four-letter words." Now, they're like, "Ha, Ha, you see, you see. Your guy maybe, just maybe, did something once that our guy is accused of doing like 25 times. Moral equivalence! Moral equivalence!"
You mean the same FBI that tried to influence an election all because they didn't like a candidate?I've said my piece days ago. Let the woman tell her story. Let it all come out. If she wants to file a police report, let her. If they want to investigate, let the police investigate. This is a job interview, just like it was with Kavanaugh. The voters will then decide in November. That's the same thing I said with Kavanaugh. Let the accusers tell their story (you guys didn't want that). Let the FBI do its required background checks and look into the accusers' allegations (you guys didn't want that). Let the Senators vote after all the evidence has been collected and aired (nope, you guys wanted the senate to vote ASAP without any info on the accusations).
Go back and look, but what I found disqualifying about Kavanaugh was that he was lying--repeatedly--under oath during the confirmation hearing. That was always the biggest issue for me.
So we should be able to expect the low bar of proof you girls rolled out on K then right? As well as the same level of associated media coverage?