Leftist Ideology 101 - "I'm for Biden, regardless."

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
Alright I'll play. To your questions.

#1) My personal opinion on all those things you said? What she displayed? And then she is voting for Biden regardless?

I'll start with who gives a flying fudge what she says.

Followed by she is either a plant or she is saying she didn't believe her neighbor. How about them apples?

#2) Perhaps it would be healthy if you simply stated you don't really have all of the details to make the assertions you are making.

1) What this woman said is the primary topic of discussion, to which you've said "who gives a flying fudge?" That's not a good start. Less sippy, more thinky.

2) The details I needed to initiate my topic were contained in the article I linked, whereby a woman who has direct knowledge of a sexual assault has stated that she will support the perpetrator without hesitation based on her political ideology. Hence the title about "Leftist Ideology". It's fairly straight-forward here. Would this woman still support Joe Biden if he had jammed his fingers inside of her daughter? What about her political ideology is contributing to her lack of ability to empathize or extricate herself from partisan feudalism for the sake of a greater human ethic?

a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Like I said, isn't it possible it indicates she did not believe her neighbor?

Why else would someone then vote for the guy who did that to her?

Ocamm's Razor and all.

And furthermore to add, the premise that even if it happend as you say that is a leftist ideology is not only disingenuous, but stupid.

If you are just throwing it out there for hits likes and attention I get it. Other than that, yeah, simply not a rational conversation.

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Like I said, isn't it possible it indicates she did not believe her neighbor?

Why else would someone then vote for the guy who did that to her?

Ocamm's Razor and all.

And furthermore to add, the premise that even if it happend as you say that is a leftist ideology is not only disingenuous, but stupid.

If you are just throwing it out there for hits likes and attention I get it. Other than that, yeah, simply not a rational conversation.

Except the part where she is quoted as believing the allegations and confirming that she was told about them. Lol.


"I have to support her just because that's what happened," LaCasse continued. "We need to stand up and tell the truth."

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

even if it happend as you say

I didn't say it. I was not there. I've referred to direct testimony presented by a media source that interviewed a "witness".

As to the inference that I value anonymous affirmation, that is once again deflection that has no place in any intellectual discourse. For one that references "discussion as adults" as your validating criteria, you employ nothing of the sort. Nonetheless, best wishes to you.

a reply to: Meniscus

Go back to the first post where I said she is either a plant or she doesn't believe her.

In true right wing parlance, what she meant was she believed that the woman had told her the story some how many years ago. It is important to remember she did tell her the story

Doesn't mean she believes her. I'd say it would be an affirmation that she doesn't.

And again to the OP, hyperbole is just that. Good luck to you.

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
And again to the OP, hyperbole is just that. Before any discussion can be had ion your position is that you will never grow as a human. Good luck to you.

What, pray tell, of my exposition invoked any form of hyperbole? The words were pungent and reflective of the topic.

Again, you attack the manner and not the topic, as is typical of weak argument and unexamined verbal engagement. Sometimes it's all you have. Each and every diversionary tactic can be exposed for the failure it presents.

The very notion of stating that someone will "never grow as a human" because you can't answer several basic questions that were straight-forwardly presented to you is admission of an inability to engage due to limitations. And again, all the best, as I hold no contempt nor discount your feelings.

a reply to: ColoradoJens

You are correct I should have been more clear. Lacasse confirmed she was told of the allegation.

But If she doesn't think the allegation is credible then why would she support Reade? Why say anything at all? A plant working for who to what end? Lacasse is going to be hounded by this for months.

If true that Lacasse doesn't believe Reade then why say anything at all?

a reply to: Meniscus
Lacasse isn't supporting Reade for money or fame. She is going to be attacked by partisan hacks on the left and some
In the media. It could hurt her career. Nobody wants to hire someone that's part of something as politicized as this will become. She will probably be interviewed by police because Reade filed a police report. She will be asked to make a statement and if she lies could face charges if what she says is found untrue. She will probably have to hire lawyers. If there is a civil suit Lacasse will be a witness. There is nothing in this for her. And if she is a "plant" whatever that means then she will be found out.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

No. These are characteristics that should make any person un-electable. Typically, they're the type of things that get average people thrown in jail for a long time, as well. Obviously those laws don't apply to wealthy politicians.

At this point it's a simple tit for tat battle. The Democrats have selected their guy and no matter how terrible and old and criminal he is, they will vote for him because he's not Trump.

It’s more the irony of the left being so vocal about Trump and Kavenaugh, but now seem to not have the same drive for justice. Maybe a friend can explain it to you.

Well, it's the way the game works. By the time you get to this stage in the game, you're all or nothing. If you're a team player, you vote for your team even if their candidate stinks.

That said, I cannot for the life of me figure out why they actually thought Biden was the best choice they had. Maybe they were going for name recognition (as that does matter, I guess) but surely there must be a Democrat they could have built up for name recognition in the four years they spent attempting to get Trump to debate them rationally?

I refuse to believe there was not a better candidate so I'm left wondering why they deliberately hamstrung themselves with Biden.

I don’t think this is leftist ideology, although I do see that disturbing mindset you are talking about.

I think it’s more human nature, people are always going to accept a little bad for a greater good

So In this case a little sexual assault but they get have the country back, I could see how a Democrat could rationalize it, especially “at this stage in the game”

In philosophical law, I think the question is asked...

Say there are 100 murderes on death row, and you know for a fact one is innocent but you don’t know which one, do you let all 100 go in order to protect the innocence of one man and thus tour morality, or do you let them all go to “save yourself” but maybe open a litany of problems like more murders, family members of murder victims not having justice....

a reply to: ADUB77

Or another way to look at it, do you kill all 100 men knowing one is innocent sacrificing your individual morality in order make sure the 99 murderers are killed

Knowing that releasing them may be a greater crime then killing the one innocent man?

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980

As a precursor, can we not talk about Trump in any ensuing discussion? That's not the topic.

ITF

I would like to riff on your exclusion of Trump from the discussion, in this one way: if somebody has personal, concrete information that a person they intend to vote for POTUS committed an act like the one alleged of Senator Biden.......I don't want to hear another PEEP from said person about the moral shortcomings of Trump.

If there's one thing I can't abide, it's hypocrisy. Complaining about Trump's well-documented, and often very accurate, escapades in private life, but then turning around and pushing all your chips in for Biden? And not only do you have potentially damning information about Biden, you got it from your neighbor who was the alleged victim. That just doesn't compute; it says a lot about the depravity of people's moral scales.

You can cite any and all policy SNAFUs made by Trump, and I'll listen to what you have to say, and probably agree with some of your complaints. Just don't give me the moral soap box routine, because newsflash, NONE of the people running for public office descended from heaven at the age of 40 with a history and conscience as pure as the driven snow. They ALL have skeletons rattling around under their beds; it's a matter of which ones flop out at inconvenient times.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Agreed. I prefer to leave out Trump because it is very easy to use him as an obfuscation to the topic at hand.

If I say "look at this leftist mentality", then someone inevitably says "look at this quote from Trump". The real issue is the failed leftist mentality, not the potential criticism of Trump, which is a different topic.

So what do you think about this woman that supports Biden even though she knows better than anyone that he is guilty of a disgusting sexual assault? How can one of sound mind reconcile this?

Its been interesting seeing people that during the last election, or during the kavenaugh confirmation bombarded us with we must believe the women... now saying well we have to let due process prevail.

Some of those very same people are still posting on this board.

I will say I was pleasantly surprised that AOC actually said

“I think it’s legitimate to talk about these things. And if we want, if we again want to have integrity, you can’t say both believe women, support all of this, until it inconveniences you, until it inconveniences us,”

National Review

when a clown like her recognizes you cant spend 2 years frothing about allegations, demanding resignations with no proof, and then when one of your own is accused either ignore it or say we have to let due process play out without being a raging hypocrite.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Exactly. Even AOC did not have the stomach to say "Believe the woman that made the accusation with proof, unless that proof shows what a dirtbag my candidate is."

Hopefully Biden will eat his words about believing women who accuse men of sexual assault until the claim is verified to have merit. The claim against him has more merit than most.

AOC is a thick child, but even she is not that dumb.

a reply to: Irishhaf
AOC is a Sanders supporter she doesn't want to support Biden for president. Having said that If the same credible allegations were made about Sanders she might sing a different tune. She is using these allegations to raise the question that maybe Biden shouldn't be the nominee.

a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Until they decide on his replacement. It's a simple transaction, they know that Biden for some insane reason is popular with the left most likely because they still feel the glow of Obama you know the guy who had no scandals during his entire run (wink wink) they are blind to the idea that Biden isn't a good guy. He is an old absent minded man who seems to get confused a lot and if they put him up against Trump at the debates he will be eaten alive and I think we will see him have some sort of breakdown live on stage. The real pick isn't Biden, he is just the face of it much like Dick Cheney and Bush, Bush was the face and Cheney was the real power. Whoever he picks and I swear I still think it is going to be Hillary, I may be wrong but I just can't get that out of my head will be the real power.

a reply to: InTheFlesh1980


Ummm...okay...first things first...shall we...?

1...I love the way you write...the descriptive modifiers...the words you use speak more to me than individually...than the sum of their parts...which is certainly not to detract from that summation...no sir...

2...I love the way you write...because it almost reads as if I could have written this myself...

That’s high praise...coming from me...

Yes...I am that conceited...and who really gives an eff...




On to the meat...

It truly is fascinating...watching...observing such crass hypocrisy...juxtaposed by it’s own reflection on the mechanics of human behavior...

What a perfect display of integrities lack...
This progressive compartmentalism you illustrate...is more akin to...”the emperor has no clothes”...than any intellectual ennui gleaned from such consideration’s...

Yes...these types are so very boorish...and boring...
Such that trap themselves in logics lack...are incapable of discerning it’s their own hand pressed to their throat...as they gasp out labels...like wards against their own incredible natures...

So...we have the incapable...married to the incredible...giving birth to the hypocritical...

And then...we have those who actually exist there...in that place...comfortably...


It’s both sad...and comedic...but mostly just pathetic...


If they only knew how they truly reflect every label...and instance of labeling...

High theater...to be sure brother...






YouSir

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, it's the way the game works. By the time you get to this stage in the game, you're all or nothing. If you're a team player, you vote for your team even if their candidate stinks.

That said, I cannot for the life of me figure out why they actually thought Biden was the best choice they had. Maybe they were going for name recognition (as that does matter, I guess) but surely there must be a Democrat they could have built up for name recognition in the four years they spent attempting to get Trump to debate them rationally?

I refuse to believe there was not a better candidate so I'm left wondering why they deliberately hamstrung themselves with Biden.

They were terrified of Sanders. They picked the guy they thought was more electable. Remember James Carville shouting to anyone who would listen how terrible a candidate Sanders would be in the general election. Blame James Clyburn for endorsing Biden. Without his endorsement in South Carolina Biden may have still won but would not have done as well. That win was huge for Biden that was the first race with a clear winner. It wasn't even close. That propelled him into Supertuesday with lots of momentum. Biden was the front runner beating Sanders after that. They decided ok he is our guy. Let's keep him out of the spotlight though.