Biden clenches the nomination.

Recommended Videos
Status
Not open for further replies.

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
You know what that isn't? Supporting M4A, one of the most popular policies in the country.



Incorrect.
What is incorrect? Show me the votes in both the House and the Senate that we have to get M4A passed within the next 4 years. Oh yea? We don't have them, not even close, not going to get anywhere near enough no matter how we look at it. So what can we get instead? Well even Bush republicans voted for a medicare expansion, so let's go with that because that is better than coming home empty handed regardless of whether Biden or Bernie are president that would not change.

Talk is cheap, without the votes regardless of what " the people want" nothing happens. This is a republic, not a democracy so the amount of people who want something doesn't matter as much as where those people are located.

If the people vote in their interests, why do states like Kentucky, whose people lives depend on social services more than most states, elect people like Mitch McConnell who is trying to cut all of the programs they need to survive?
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,678
3,877
118
What is incorrect? Show me the votes in both the House and the Senate that we have to get M4A passed within the next 4 years. Oh yea? We don't have them, not even close, not going to get anywhere near enough no matter how we look at it. So what can we get instead? Well even Bush republicans voted for a medicare expansion, so let's go with that because that is better than coming home empty handed regardless of whether Biden or Bernie are president that would not change.

Talk is cheap, without the votes regardless of what " the people want" nothing happens. This is a republic, not a democracy so the amount of people who want something doesn't matter as much as where those people are located.
And as long as you support people who perpetuate not helping you, you won't be helped.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
And as long as you support people who perpetuate not helping you, you won't be helped.
I support ed Jill Stein, I support Bernie, I support Warren, The only person I gave money to was Bernie. I am supporting Bernie now by helping him implement his plan B, even though I can't stand Biden. I am well off however. My taxes will be increased under Bernie's plans but that is a good thing because it will save lives and that is more important. Biden is also going to expand the programs that are needed to save lives, so between voting for the fool whose plans do help the poor vs the monster whose plans will kill the poor, I will have to take the fool. At least he isn't the monster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worgen

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,678
3,877
118
I support ed Jill Stein, I support Bernie, I support Warren, The only person I gave money to was Bernie. I am supporting Bernie now by helping him implement his plan B, even though I can't stand Biden. I am well off however. My taxes will be increased under Bernie's plans but that is a good thing because it will save lives and that is more important. Biden is also going to expand the programs that are needed to save lives, so between voting for the fool whose plans do help the poor vs the monster whose plans will kill the poor, I will have to take the fool. At least he isn't the monster.
He's proven to be a monster politically for longer than either of us have been alive. Not to mention a rapist and serial sexual harasser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sneed's SeednFeed

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
And as long as you support people who perpetuate not helping you, you won't be helped.
Also, if that were true, how is it more people in Mitch McConnell's district receive more of the benefits he promises to cut, so how are they still being helped while he works against them? The reality of how this is working right now is so much more complicated.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,678
3,877
118
Also, if that were true, how is it more people in Mitch McConnell's district receive more of the benefits he promises to cut, so how are they still being helped while he works against them? The reality of how this is working right now is so much more complicated.
If true, Mitch McConnell helps his constituents. Of course we call that pork barreling. For example, Biden represents one of the heaviest banking states in the country. Which is why he helps banks. I don't begrudge the banks for voting in their own interest. I do hate that they buy politicians and am disappointed in the people who unironically support banker candidates.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
He's proven to be a monster politically for longer than either of us have been alive. Not to mention a rapist and serial sexual harasser.
Biden looks like a LOTR Golem next to Trump the Xenomorph by comparison. Don't get me wrong, Biden is a total creep. I am in no way saying he is not. Trump however, was a violent rapist according to court records where he ripped out his wife's hair in rage and violently raped her at the same time. He tried to rape his business partner in his own daughter's bedroom. He raped Jean Carroll in a changing booth. He still has women suing him till this day over his numerous actions and is abusing his position to influence the courts to delay the constant barrage of cases against him. Trump's long paper trail of assault and abuse of women still makes Biden, as creepy as he is, look good by comparison, and that is hard to do. Trump's long list of crimes is far longer than Biden's and honestly, with how upset you were about Clinton's arms deals to the Saudi's, I am amazed you can somehow think Biden is worse than Trump who has done so much worse, when Biden has promised not to sell arms to the Saudis at all and instead he plans to restrict them over the war in Yemen and the murder of the Washington times reporter.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-tru...-minor-wife-business-victims-roy-moore-713531


Biden is the only candidate we have running right now that is finally standing up to the Saudi's. Something you have called on them to do for a long time and now you don't seem to care if that happens or not or something.

EDIT: Also according to Tara Reade, she said that if a report surfaces, the report would not corroborate her story because she did not report a sexual assault in her complaint at the time. She apparently has changed her story numerous times and we are getting different accounts of events from the different people she told. Why is her story constantly changing?

I was actually raped. My recollection of events never changed. I still remember the same things happening the same way no matter how many times I relive it when thinking about it. Why file a report at all if not to report the rape? People who were raped usually either don't file a report at all or tell the truth on the report. Not lie on a report she didn't even have to file. If she didn't want to report the rape she would have just walked away from filing the report at all. It was her decision to file a report in the first place. It doesn't make sense. I can understand not wanting anyone to know, but then why file a report to draw attention to it and then lie if you don't want them to know? Her claiming she lied on the report is not helping her case here. I am more inclined to believe her version of events at the time then her changed story now tbh. I have no doubt something happened. Biden is super creepy. I am also more likely to believe what she said happened initially than after she has had time to embellish her story years later after telling numerous different people entirely different stories all together. I believe her, just what she said when the events were fresh in her mind.
 
Last edited:

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
If true, Mitch McConnell helps his constituents. Of course we call that pork barreling. For example, Biden represents one of the heaviest banking states in the country. Which is why he helps banks. I don't begrudge the banks for voting in their own interest. I do hate that they buy politicians and am disappointed in the people who unironically support banker candidates.
They do not receive their benefits because of Mitch, they receive them IN SPITE of Mitch. The problem here is that much of the media is controlled by conservatives in these regions and the people do not actually know how this works. They are able to get people to vote against their own interests and ignore the real problems by scapegoating someone/ something else and instead get them riled up about something else instead. Yes we have people who will die if Mitch follows through on his proposed cuts, but they are more worried about someone taking their guns than they are about dying. They are more worried about making abortion illegal than having their food and medicine taken away. They are more worried about people different from them moving into their neighborhood or democrats imposing sharia law onto them than being able to take their kids to the doctor. The thing is, I am not even sure they realize that they will lose these things they need to survive, when I have talked to people with this mindset, they are all over place so there really is no telling. One thing I do know for sure is many of these people who think like this always vote and there are a lot of them. I am surrounded by them in my district, which also elects some of the worst offenders in congress. If I knew of a way to get rid of the awful congressmen they elect here, believe me I would do it. We are just absurdly outnumbered here.

There is no way you could elect a progressive here, local facebook is full of comparisons of Bernie to nazis. The people here believe this nonsense. seriously,.

Oh and Kentucky is the 2nd most federally dependent state in the US while at the same time elects some of the fiercest opponents to helping the poor:
 
Last edited:

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
During one of the April 2019 interviews with the AP, Reade said Biden rubbed her shoulders and neck and played with her hair. She said she was asked by an aide in Biden’s Senate office to dress more conservatively and told: “Don’t be so sexy.”

She said of Biden: “I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.”

The AP reviewed notes of its 2019 interviews after Reade came forward in March with allegations of sexual assault. Reporters discovered an additional transcript and notes on Friday.

A recording of one interview was deleted before Reade emerged in 2020, in keeping with the reporter’s standard practice. A portion of that interview was also recorded on video, but not the part in which she spoke of having “chickened out”.

The AP declined to publish details of the 2019 interviews at the time because reporters were unable to corroborate Reade’s allegations, and aspects of her story contradicted other reporting.

She didn't even keep her story straight while trying to report it later. I am not really sure what to make of this because she keeps changing her story.
 

Agema

Overhead a rainbow appears... in black and white
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,917
7,080
118
And as long as you support people who perpetuate not helping you, you won't be helped.
Maybe. But sometimes the work is simply defending what you have, or making small and gradual shifts in how a problem is viewed and what solutions are viable. It's worth remembering that if progressives become more powerful, the Democratic Party - including the DNC and Biden - will have to bend to them anyway.

* * *

There are two obvious dangers for the Democrats with four more years of Trump:

Firstly, if he kills the ACA (whether outright, or undermining it in ways until it becomes unviable), the USA has potentially lost even that modest advance in universal healthcare for decades, because it'll need Democratic control of the presidency and both houses (with a Senate supermajority) just to get something that weak back. With it already there, you've got at least a beachhead to expand the idea and reform towards better universal coverage.

Secondly, you'll find your courts overrun by hardcore conservatives who are effectively impossible to remove outside retirement and death, and will spend decades delaying or sinking progressive programs in the courts no matter what politicians you elect. I don't fancy the odds on Ruth Bader Ginsburg lasting another four years, she'll be replaced by a fresh-faced 50-year-old ultraconservative anti-abortionist who'll be around for 30 years and a 6-3 SCOTUS majority in the short term. (Although honestly at that point if I were the Democrats, I'd expand SCOTUS with liberals to 11 or 13 justices as a great big "Fuck you".)
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Maybe. But sometimes the work is simply defending what you have, or making small and gradual shifts in how a problem is viewed and what solutions are viable. It's worth remembering that if progressives become more powerful, the Democratic Party - including the DNC and Biden - will have to bend to them anyway.

* * *

There are two obvious dangers for the Democrats with four more years of Trump:

Firstly, if he kills the ACA (whether outright, or undermining it in ways until it becomes unviable), the USA has potentially lost even that modest advance in universal healthcare for decades, because it'll need Democratic control of the presidency and both houses (with a Senate supermajority) just to get something that weak back. With it already there, you've got at least a beachhead to expand the idea and reform towards better universal coverage.

Secondly, you'll find your courts overrun by hardcore conservatives who are effectively impossible to remove outside retirement and death, and will spend decades delaying or sinking progressive programs in the courts no matter what politicians you elect. I don't fancy the odds on Ruth Bader Ginsburg lasting another four years, she'll be replaced by a fresh-faced 50-year-old ultraconservative anti-abortionist who'll be around for 30 years and a 6-3 SCOTUS majority in the short term. (Although honestly at that point if I were the Democrats, I'd expand SCOTUS with liberals to 11 or 13 justices as a great big "Fuck you".)
Yea, I would definitely consider expanding the court myself as well, but that too is easier said than done and needs congressional cooperation. What I really would like to see is congress implement easier ways to remove judges. This whole lifetime appointment mess is not something that should be continued and is causing more problems than it solves. The sheer amount of judges the GOP has stacked as it is will be screwing things up for the rest of our lives. We need to change this because the people should not have to pay for one bad election for the rest of their lives, and as it is we will already be doing so.
 

Agema

Overhead a rainbow appears... in black and white
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,917
7,080
118

She didn't even keep her story straight while trying to report it later. I am not really sure what to make of this because she keeps changing her story.
I'm not sure I'd necessarily be too harsh: memory is both flawed and flexible. People don't necessarily remember everything about an event at any one time: some things can float in and out. Memory is also not a cast-iron, unchangeable recording of the past: it can be subject to change and error. It is therefore normal to expect at least inconsistencies in someone's version of events over time.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
I'm not sure I'd necessarily be too harsh: memory is both flawed and flexible. People don't necessarily remember everything about an event at any one time: some things can float in and out. Memory is also not a cast-iron, unchangeable recording of the past: it can be subject to change and error. It is therefore normal to expect at least inconsistencies in someone's version of events over time.
Right, that is why I am more inclined to believe what she said initially at the time to others and on the report rather than her claim she voluntarily took it upon herself to file a report against guy she said she wasn't even afraid of and then lie on the report? She didn't claim the report was a lie until they brought up looking for it. Instead she initially referred to report as evidence she filed harassment against him, but Once she found out they were looking for it, she then claims she didn't mention harassment or assault in the report at all. So what did she say in the report if it was not about sexual harassment or assault? The articles on her discussing the assault claims she was demoted and fired for filing a sexual harassment report, but now she says she didn't mention sexual harassment in the report, so why was she demoted and fired if she didn't mention sexual harassment in the report? Which of these stories she is telling us is true? You were either fired for filing a sexual harassment report or you weren't, but you can't be fired for a sexual harassment report if you didn't complain about a sexual harassment in the report...

I completely understand people's recollection of events change, just usually not in that manner.

EDIT: The more I hear about what she has stated, the more it sounds like she didn't mention sexual harassment until after she was fired while she was angry about being fired, and didn't mention assault until recently, after voting for Biden, praising him online and after not mentioning it in previous interviews.

I understand being annoyed by a creepy guy telling me I have nice legs and am pretty, it makes you feel pretty damn uncomfortable tbh, but that isn't the same as sexual assault by any means.

She was praising him on twitter in 2017 on his work to help end sexual assault..

This is getting weirder the more I read what she says. You praise someone who sexually assaulted you for their work to end sexual assault against women? Something is seriously not right here.
 
Last edited:

Agema

Overhead a rainbow appears... in black and white
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,917
7,080
118
Yea, I would definitely consider expanding the court myself as well, but that too is easier said than done and needs congressional cooperation. What I really would like to see is congress implement easier ways to remove judges. This whole lifetime appointment mess is not something that should be continued and is causing more problems than it solves.
The USA sometimes feels to me like a gerontocracy. More high-ranking people should throw in the towel closer to normal retirement ages. We can expect people to be 50+ to amass the background and record to attain high office. I know a lot of them are still highly capable and have those decades of experience, but it dismays me to see a country run by a disproportionate number of 70+-year-olds.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
6,132
3,706
118
Country
United States of America
The articles on her discussing the assault claims she was demoted and fired for filing a sexual harassment report, but now she says she didn't mention sexual harassment in the report
If I remember correctly, the distinction here is that her report describes sexual harassment without explicitly naming it that. This is not an inconsistency, just a bad Associated Press headline.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Firstly, if he kills the ACA (whether outright, or undermining it in ways until it becomes unviable), the USA has potentially lost even that modest advance in universal healthcare for decades, because it'll need Democratic control of the presidency and both houses (with a Senate supermajority) just to get something that weak back. With it already there, you've got at least a beachhead to expand the idea and reform towards better universal coverage.
People seem to not realize that we have been trying to pass some form of universal healthcare for like 100 years. If it goes away it will be insalely hard to bring back.

Biden looks like a LOTR Golem next to Trump the Xenomorph by comparison. Don't get me wrong, Biden is a total creep. I am in no way saying he is not. Trump however, was a violent rapist according to court records where he ripped out his wife's hair in rage and violently raped her at the same time. He tried to rape his business partner in his own daughter's bedroom. He raped Jean Carroll in a changing booth. He still has women suing him till this day over his numerous actions and is abusing his position to influence the courts to delay the constant barrage of cases against him. Trump's long paper trail of assault and abuse of women still makes Biden, as creepy as he is, look good by comparison, and that is hard to do. Trump's long list of crimes is far longer than Biden's and honestly, with how upset you were about Clinton's arms deals to the Saudi's, I am amazed you can somehow think Biden is worse than Trump who has done so much worse, when Biden has promised not to sell arms to the Saudis at all and instead he plans to restrict them over the war in Yemen and the murder of the Washington times reporter.
Yeah, with how crimson5pheonix argues some of these points, I really do have to wonder if they are just trolling or even a plant just there to sabotage things since they never really seem to address the arguments except by saying the democrats are bad.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
If I remember correctly, the distinction here is that her report describes sexual harassment without explicitly naming it that. This is not an inconsistency, just a bad Associated Press headline.
I guess we will find out what it says when it turns up. Though, multiple sources have claimed she has repeatedly contradicted herself so I am more inclined to believe her earlier story and the report, as it is more likely to be more accurate. Her voting for and praising Biden online prior to this isn't exactly helping her here.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Yea, I would definitely consider expanding the court myself as well, but that too is easier said than done and needs congressional cooperation. What I really would like to see is congress implement easier ways to remove judges. This whole lifetime appointment mess is not something that should be continued and is causing more problems than it solves. The sheer amount of judges the GOP has stacked as it is will be screwing things up for the rest of our lives. We need to change this because the people should not have to pay for one bad election for the rest of their lives, and as it is we will already be doing so.
I'm unsure about doing away with lifetime appointments to the supreme court. I think that at least one branch of our government does need to be above having to campaign all the time for re-election. I mean it is really annoying that the courts are packed, again, but I'm not sure even removing judges should be easier since then it means republicans can do that also. Like anyway the democrats can change the courts could be used by the republicans and considering how bloodthirsty and willing to go down and dirty they are I would expect them to.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
I'm unsure about doing away with lifetime appointments to the supreme court. I think that at least one branch of our government does need to be above having to campaign all the time for re-election. I mean it is really annoying that the courts are packed, again, but I'm not sure even removing judges should be easier since then it means republicans can do that also. Like anyway the democrats can change the courts could be used by the republicans and considering how bloodthirsty and willing to go down and dirty they are I would expect them to.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg initially gave me pause, but in the end I think lifetime appointments are outdated with the pace at which the world changes now vs when this was made. The supreme court is having to rule on technology and issues most of them do not even understand. Lifetime appointments become even more political and we instead have issues of " we accept that Mitch McConnell is a scumbag, but at least he gave us conservative appointments so we will keep voting for him." BS. It isn't worth it anymore as the separation between branches of government have been dissolved and as was shown by Republican's refusal to appoint Merrick Garland when the time came because of the lifetime appointment issue. The entire system was shown to be flawed as it has allowed policy to be broken and partisan bench stacking instead of working together to build a bipartisan court. This isn't going to be resolved in our lifetimes unless we actually change how this works.

EDIT: Some states have a Retention election, maybe that should be an option on the federal level and determined by the popular vote as a better means to address this. The republicans do not actually have a majority in terms of actual population or the popular vote, so yea it would prevent people who do not represent the majority of the country calling the shots for the majority of the country:

Judges can still be appointed, just they will also be able to be removed if the majority of the population in the US decides they are not doing a good job. Right now there is no accountability of the supreme court, it would add a layer of accountability that does not exist.
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
6,132
3,706
118
Country
United States of America
I guess we will find out what it says when it turns up. Though, multiple sources have claimed she has repeatedly contradicted herself so I am more inclined to believe her earlier story and the report, as it is more likely to be more accurate. Her voting for and praising Biden online prior to this isn't exactly helping her here.
Like Christine Blasey Ford, she is indeed not a perfect victim.

But that doesn't mean she's wrong.


... Marcotte repeatedly makes the very serious charge that Tara Reade has “changed” her story “so much in the past year.” But this is an unfair and inaccurate way to characterize what has happened. Reade did not originally disclose the full nature of what happened to her. In April 2019, when Lucy Flores spoke out about Biden touching her inappropriately, Tara Reade came forward to confirm that Biden had also done similar acts to her. Then, later, Reade said that there was more that she had not previously disclosed, namely a serious sexual assault. To see why this is not properly characterized as “changing her story,” imagine if I asked you: “How was your relationship with your employer?” and you said “It was rocky. He sometimes gave me… funny looks, and did things that made me uncomfortable, like patting me on the head.” Then, later, when you talked to someone else at more length, you admitted that there had been more, that the employer had assaulted you. An unfair person trying to discredit you (a la Marcotte) could characterize this as “changing your story.” But that’s the kind of aggressively uncharitable framing that the lawyer for your employer would use when cross-examining you (“AND WHY DID YOU CHANGE YOUR STORY?”) rather than the kind of framing we should use if we are trying, as Marcotte says she is, merely to get to the truth. Gradually opening up about the parts of your story that are the most difficult to tell is very different from altering it. The difference should be obvious, especially to someone who understands how survivors tell stories.


The other piece of evidence for Marcotte’s assertion that Reade has changed her story a lot is that Tara Reade once wrote a blog post in which she talked about leaving her DC job, and she does not say it was because Biden sexually assaulted her. Again, someone trying to be fair to Reade, rather than trying to sow as many doubts as possible, would show an understanding of the fact that a woman who has been sexually assaulted by a prominent politician might not necessarily post about it on her public blog, and might emphasize the other reasons she left Washington. This stuff is difficult to talk about, and an honest feminist writer would be taking great pains to help people understand why things that look like they might be “changes” in a story aren’t necessarily changes at all, and might just reflect a growing level of comfort with being public about something very painful, something originally only disclosed in private to friends and family. Prof. Anthony Zenkus, an expert on sexual violence at the Columbia School of Social Work, shocked by Marcotte’s doubting of Reade’s sexual assault claim because she “changed” her story over time, explains in an op-ed why the apparent contradiction is no contradiction at all:


In the sexual violence advocacy community, it is well understood that survivors take time to tell their full stories. At an advocacy agency where I was a director, a young girl who was sexually abused by a male relative told the police how he fondled her above her clothing. Months later, she spoke about the penetration. This is typical behavior for victims of trauma. Rarely does the story come out all at once. When Tara Reade joined other women in April of 2019 in speaking about how Biden put his hands on her and caressed her neck, she did not speak about the most horrific part of what had happened. The response from supporters of Biden was swift. Reade was criticized, her story dismissed, and her character attacked. It is clear why she wavered on coming forward with the most brutal details of her rape.
Marcotte, by failing to explain this, and instead using Tara’s gradual willingness to share more as “changing her story,” is discouraging her audience from thinking about how real world victims relay traumatic events. Prof. Zenkus notes that Tara’s story “has not changed. Details have been included now that Reade said she wasn’t comfortable including in the past.”


When I asked Tara’s friend Sarah about Tara’s willingness to come forward, she said that she had known Tara was not revealing everything, but said the decision was completely understandable to her. “I didn’t feel that it was my place when I spoke with reporters last year to say ‘Well if you think that’s bad, I even know more.’” In response to criticism of Tara’s timing, Sarah said “I’ve known this situation since 1993” and added that she had actually discouraged Tara from coming forward, because she didn’t think Tara would be safe, and “I know enough to know that when women do come forward even other women go ‘Really? Prove it. I need documentation… I just think we don’t want to admit that people are capable of bad, gross things.” She acknowledges that “a lot of people who are watching [Tara’s] media presence critically at the moment will probably wonder ‘Why is she jumping up and down now?’ [But] she’s been jumping up and down since it happened!” noting that Tara immediately told Sarah, her mother, and her brother.

Revealing progressively more publicly is not dishonest. She has multiple people who will back her up as telling them about the rape all the way back in 1993.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.