teachercd
Active member
Awww heck, come on, it happened a really long time ago, it is not a big deal.In most States the statute of limitations does not apply to sexual assaults.
-Some posters, probably.
Awww heck, come on, it happened a really long time ago, it is not a big deal.In most States the statute of limitations does not apply to sexual assaults.
Who would even conduct an investigation? The police won't because the statute has run out. Blitz doesn't trust the press to do it, so who does that leave?
I suppose this is all the more reason for Joe to come out and talk about it...he can't get in trouble!
One naturally wonders why this allegation is more important than those against Trump.
BlitzFirst said:Wanting her to be perfect with perfect recall and follow an ordered, logical string of behavior is really ignorant to sexual assault survivors and people who experience trauma.
What's the evidence that it is more important?
That for the last couple dozen pages two people have been the primary drivers of this conversation, posting about it over and over and over.
Yet neither of them have mentioned a word about Trump's allegations, even with active news happening around them in the past few weeks.
Yeah, I read that. Still doesn't answer: Where was this person 25 years ago? Or in 2008? Or 2012? Or last year when Reade started talking to the press for the first time?
That she's only now coming out with this after Reade's latest version is concerning. Because either Reade obfuscated the truth in every interview she gave from 4/2019 through last month or this woman is misremembering something she was told 25 years ago.
If this was Reade's truth, why not come out with that in her interview with The Union? Because clearly, according to this woman, she was telling people that truth 25 years ago.
Where was that truth in 2008? Or 2012? Why is Reade NOW fine with disclosing everything that happened, but wasn't a year ago?
Frankly, that creates more questions than it answers.
McHugh: When did this come on your radar again?
LaCasse: Just recently. Tara called me and said, "Oh my gosh, this Joe Biden thing is coming up again." I said, "Oh my God, that." I had forgotten about it.
But, again, if Reade was willing to tell this story unprompted 25 years ago, why not tell it in any of the interviews she did before a month ago? That's not explained away by her being a sexual assault survivor. These memories were available to her then, but not when she reached out to the press to tell this story? But now they are again?
Occam's Razor has to be applied at some point.
So two people (who are voting for Biden, and not for Trump) talking about Biden's allegations on a messageboard is proof or evidence that the Reade allegation is "more important". Ok.
BlitzFirst said:I was actually responding directly to the idea that her story can't change over the course of 25 years or she loses all credibility.
https://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/91866-best-andor-worst-posting-replies/No one has said that.
straw man
/ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Here you go with this again. You also are not talking about Trump's allegations. Biden's allegation must also be more important to you?