Joe Biden's #metoo moment

[carpedm9587]

On this matter I think I am being pretty unbiased. I am not saying either woman should be dismissed or believed outright. I think in both cases (Kavanaugh and Biden) the accused should be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I think both accusers should be listened to and their claims investigated.

Can you show me where I have said otherwise?

I was responding to the comment in general. It jumped out of your post rather dramatically, since I have pretty consistently experienced extreme political bias from you. You went so far as to suggest your voting would always be based on party affiliation.

However, I cannot say that bias was evident in this particular discussion, AFAICT.

[Leonhard]

You'd have better odds of one the Tweb residents of the anti-Kavanaugh crowd coming in here and acknowledging Biden's rape charges than the DNC nominating Sanders.

I've stated that I believe the victim unless given very good reasons not to.

[Bill the Cat]

I neither believe nor disbelieve anyone. I let the facts come out first.

[MaxVel]

I neither believe nor disbelieve anyone. I let the facts come out first.

I'm now not sure whether to believe you about that, or not. Mind. Blown.

[rogue06]

I appreciate that Sparko. I think Tara's claims have been fairly investigated but we should not hesitate to call out those who rush to judgement in her case.

They got little more than one day's coverage by the networks who then immediately moved on. At this point there has been very little investigation -- certainly not even 0.01% of what we saw concerning Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh (and that number might be too high).

[DivineOb]

They got little more than one day's coverage by the networks who then immediately moved on. At this point there has been very little investigation -- certainly not even 0.01% of what we saw concerning Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh (and that number might be too high).

Do you not understand that they reason they got little coverage was because they were investigated and found to not hold water?

[lilpixieofterror]

Do you not understand that they reason they got little coverage was because they were investigated and found to not hold water?

Or were politically inconvenient. Take your pick.

[DivineOb]

Or were politically inconvenient. Take your pick.

Look at the coverage that Benghazi and "buttery males" got. The MSM covers tons of things in depth which are politically inconvenient for Democrats.

[lilpixieofterror]

Look at the coverage that Benghazi and "buttery males" got. The MSM covers tons of things in depth which are politically inconvenient for Democrats.

Which mostly took place in 2014, how often was in mentioned in 2016?

[DivineOb]

Which mostly took place in 2014, how often was in mentioned in 2016?

"Buttery males" was all anyone talked about in 2016. What are you on about?

Here's a search for "benghazi 2016 news" and you can find plenty of hits.

Come on LMoT.

[lilpixieofterror]

"Buttery males" was all anyone talked about in 2016. What are you on about?

Here's a search for "benghazi 2016 news" and you can find plenty of hits.

Come on LMoT.

First hit, on your search article in the NYT with the headline:

House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton



You can’t even troll right.

[DivineOb]

First hit, on your search article in the NYT with the headline:

House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton



You can’t even troll right.

It's reporting what the Republicans found in their own report!

What about "buttery males"? Was that silently buried in 2016?