More Proof for Reade

Documents from 1996 confirm that Tara Reade was traumatized by sexual harassment she experienced in Joe Biden’s office.

It’s like this case was created on purpose to demonstrate the utter ludicrousness of the Kavanaugh allegations and the dishonesty of the pussy-hatting classes.

7 thoughts on “More Proof for Reade”

  1. I don’t know what to think about Reade’s allegations, but all the Biden bros are convinced that this didn’t happen while still believing without a doubt that Kavanaugh is a brutal rapist.

    If the Democrats only began to think that Reade’s claim might be true, then we could get the chance to have Biden replaced….


    1. Is it possible, though? Is there a procedure or a precedent to replace a candidate so late in the game?

      I obviously agree he should be replaced because it’s a travesty at this point.


      1. “Is there a procedure or a precedent to replace a candidate”

        You think the DNC cares? And what do you think the Coumomania was about if not having a non-Bernie reserve in case Biden didn’t…. prove viable?


        1. Cuomo forced nursing homes to admit infected people. 5,000 elderly died as a result. I’d rather vote for Idi Amin than him.

          These people are so useless they didn’t even prepare a contingency candidate. But hey, not to worry. Stacey Abrams will claim she won the election no matter who runs and what happens.


  2. Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee in November, unless he goes completely senile first (won’t happen that quickly). It won’t matter who the VP candidate is. There have been exactly two elections in all of America’s 200-plus-year history where credible historians believe that the VP choice made a difference in the outcome.

    Trump is going to be the Republican nominee, of course — and the election will swing on where the coronavirus has brought the country and the economy by then.

    Think about that: A sub-microscopic strip of invisible, odorless, essentially undetectable RNA molecules is going to determine American and world history for at least the next four years.

    Sounds like a hack science-fiction/horror story about a journey into madness, but somehow I can’t get concerned about it enough to be alarmed. Just clear your head, buckle your seat belt, and ride off into the whirlwind.


  3. Elections are fixed, but I will provide technical answers to some of the questions.

    The Democratic and Republican parties have guaranteed positions on the ballots on all states, based on laws either guaranteeing that directly, or guaranteeing that due to performance in past elections. Voters in states vote in federal presidential elections for slates of electors put on the ballots by the state Democratic and Republican parties. They don’t vote for presidential election candidates, and though the name of a presidential candidate will appear on the ballot in most cases, legally the ballot is cast for the slate of electors, not the candidate.

    Just like most people seem to assume that there is a plague outbreak in the USA, because the TV tells them that, against all other evidence, they also assume there is an election for President of the United States and they vote directly for one of the candidates. Though in either case it may not be “most people”, in each presidential election over 40% of registered voters sensibly choose not to participate.

    So in the past, both parties nominate presidential candidates and its as if they are running for an election for president, and most of the electors that are actually elected will vote for said candidate. Other there being more votes “for” the losing presidential candidate in 2016, a number of electors didn’t vote for their party’s presidential nominee, so whatever. In addition, the national Democratic convention has not happened yet. The way things are going, there is a good chance of it not happening. There is a chance of the election itself not happening. No one even has a majority of the delegates yet, though at the moment there is only one declared Democratic and one declared Republican presidential candidate actually running.

    Really at this point the question is academic, but there is nothing legally preventing either party from “switching” their nominee as late as December when the electors vote. There is nothing preventing a state party from putting a different nominee than the national nominee in the ballots, some Democratic state parties did this in 1948 and 1960, or the national party from having the convention pick a national nominee who has not contested a single primary, which last happened in 1968. The Republicans considered doing this in 2016. In 1872 the Democratic Party did not nominate a presidential candidate, advising their voters to vote for the electors for a Republican running as an independent. He lost by a fairly large margin, then died before the Electoral College vote took place, meaning none of the Democratic electors chosen that year could legally vote for him.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.