President Joe Biden - Kamala Harris Administration

[whodeycin85]

Ooh. I can practically feel a dilly bar already sliding into my awaiting mouth.

Who is dilly??? And how's bigs his bar???

 

[McDad]

Who is dilly??? And how's bigs his bar???

...if you have to ask.

 

[whodeycin85]

It could...........
but we simply cannot know without her providing more......which she has consistently refused to do.

My point from the beginning.

Could you make an inference based on Joe publicly inappropriate behavior towards young girls of a certain age??? Or do you believe sniffing, touching and ,tweaking a young girl if appropriate?

 

[whodeycin85]

The amazing thing is that DJT hasn't used this a commercial against Biden...it's be easy to over lay a young girl reading those passages with the numerous videos of his groping kids etc...that would be epic...I won't say DJT won't ever use it, but the fact when offered the chance he passed the first time, Im not 100% sure he will use it..but he should

 

[BreatheUT]

It could...........
but we simply cannot know without her providing more......which she has consistently refused to do.

My point from the beginning.

However you want to frame it to make yourself feel better about a grown man thinking it was appropriate. She was old enough to remember but young enough not to understand.

If you didn't defend this then your inevitable vote Biden would make you the monster he could be.

 

[kiddiedoc]

This may be the realist X post ever wrote. I mean this post goes long and hard inthe paint like Wilt putting up 100 in a game with over 30 rebounds.

Wow.

A must read of all facts summarized in one place!

Agree. Very well written.

 

[luthervol]

Luth, now you’re just trying to gaslight. I read several pages of you clearly interpreting “probably inappropriate” and “probably not inappropriate”.

You failed to apply the definition in the correct context. You could have just left it at it doesn’t make it definitively inappropriate, but you instead chose to be willfully ignorant.

Simply not true.

I never debated the definition in the least. Not once.

My point was and is...........just because someone says probably does not mean that it is probable.

Most people in the PF will probably understand the distinction.......(see what I did there)?

 

[whodeycin85]

It would depend on the context.
But I would obviously have a tendency to believe anything negative about Trump.....until it was proven otherwise.

Would that belief have to do with Trump past behavior and statements towards Ivanka?

 

[hog88]

Simply not true.

I never debated the definition in the least. Not once.

My point was and is...........just because someone says probably does not mean that it is probable.

Most people in the PF will probably understand the distinction.......(see what I did there)?

And there it is, most girls claiming to be probable victims of inappropriate actions towards them are not to be believed.

 

[luthervol]

Would that belief have to do with Trump past behavior and statements towards Ivanka?

Obviously that along with a multitude of other things.

 

[whodeycin85]

Obviously that along with a multitude of other things.

So then why is it absurd for people to make that assumption about Biden given that there is s much more evidence for to his audio and video behavior, his some referring to him as pedo Pete and now ABs diary. Short of seeing him abuse her what more do you need?

 

[luthervol]

And there it is, most girls claiming to be probable victims of inappropriate actions towards them are not to be believed.

Not what I said at all.....and you know that.

But maybe we can agree with this.

If a woman claims she was probably a victim of inappropriate behavior years earlier as a child, you ask her for more details.
You ask her if she wants to pursue the accusation. You follow up later to see if she has had further revelations.

What you do not do is condemn the accused based on that one statement,
What you do not do is interpret her "probably" as meaning certainly.

Which is exactly what many of the non-thinking posters in the PF were doing.

I'm confident that fewer will do that now - which means my argument was successful. (and that's all I can really expect to accomplish)

You're welcome

 

[C-south]

Not what I said at all.....and you know that.

But maybe we can agree with this.

If a woman claims she was probably a victim of inappropriate behavior years earlier as a child, you ask her for more details.
You ask her if she wants to pursue the accusation. You follow up later to see if she has had further revelations.

What you do not do is condemn the accused based on that one statement,
What you do not do is interpret her "probably" as meaning certainly.

Which is exactly what many of the non-thinking posters in the PF were doing.

I'm confident that fewer will do that now - which means my argument was successful. (and that's all I can really expect to accomplish)

You're welcome

She wrote it in a ******** book.

 

[luthervol]

So then why is it absurd for people to make that assumption about Biden given that there is s much more evidence for to his audio and video behavior, his some referring to him as pedo Pete and now ABs diary. Short of seeing him abuse her what more do you need?

I never once said it was absurd for people to assume he is probably guilty based on the evidence- NEVER.

My issue was with saying he was guilty as if it was a fact. - which many were doing.

I will assume he is probably not guilty based on the evidence.

Until there is additional evidence (if ever), we are left with our assumptions.

 

[luthervol]

She wrote it in a ******** book.

And??????????????????

 

[whodeycin85]

I never once said it was absurd for people to assume he is probably guilty based on the evidence- NEVER.

My issue was with saying he was guilty as if it was a fact. - which many were doing.

I will assume he is probably not guilty based on the evidence.

Until there is additional evidence (if ever), we are left with our assumptions.

What evidence do you have that he probably isn't guilty

 

[Wireless1]

Not what I said at all.....and you know that.

But maybe we can agree with this.

If a woman claims she was probably a victim of inappropriate behavior years earlier as a child, you ask her for more details.
You ask her if she wants to pursue the accusation. You follow up later to see if she has had further revelations.

What you do not do is condemn the accused based on that one statement,
What you do not do is interpret her "probably" as meaning certainly.

Which is exactly what many of the non-thinking posters in the PF were doing.

I'm confident that fewer will do that now - which means my argument was successful. (and that's all I can really expect to accomplish)

You're welcome

E Jean Carroll's "probably" cost Trump millions.

 

[hog88]

Not what I said at all.....and you know that.

But maybe we can agree with this.

If a woman claims she was probably a victim of inappropriate behavior years earlier as a child, you ask her for more details.
You ask her if she wants to pursue the accusation. You follow up later to see if she has had further revelations.

What you do not do is condemn the accused based on that one statement,
What you do not do is interpret her "probably" as meaning certainly.

Which is exactly what many of the non-thinking posters in the PF were doing.

I'm confident that fewer will do that now - which means my argument was successful. (and that's all I can really expect to accomplish)

You're welcome

If the person who "probably" acted inappropriate to her has a long and documented history of questionable (at best) or definitely inappropriate behavior with other girls I tend to give her "probably" a lot of weight. I surely don't spend a day trying to discredit her story.

 

[luthervol]

What evidence do you have that he probably isn't guilty

Do you need evidence for an assumption of innocence?

 

[hog88]

I never once said it was absurd for people to assume he is probably guilty based on the evidence- NEVER.

My issue was with saying he was guilty as if it was a fact. - which many were doing.

I will assume he is probably not guilty based on the evidence.

Until there is additional evidence (if ever), we are left with our assumptions.

Like you have claimed an innumerous amount of times Trump is guilty as if it were fact?

 

[C-south]

Do you need evidence for an assumption of innocence?

When you shower with kids I think you do.

 

[luthervol]

E Jean Carroll's "probably" cost Trump millions.

She followed up her accusations. It was settled in a court of law.

See the difference?

 

[luthervol]

Like you have claimed an innumerous amount of times Trump is guilty as if it were fact?

Sure - people should always take issue with that - and they always do.

I'm just here to keep the scales from always being absurdly unbalanced in the PF.

Your welcome.

 

[hog88]

Sure - people should always take issue with that - and they always do.

I'm just here to keep the scales from always being absurdly unbalanced in the PF.

Your welcome.

Your efforts are appreciated.

 

[luthervol]

When you shower with kids I think you do.

Kids? Plural?

Then again, he needs no evidence for a presumption of innocence.