Do Democrats even have a made-up reason behind acting like Tara Reade's accusations were disproven or are they literally trying to wish it into existance
was somehow credible [to these same people that decry reade as a con artist]
gotta wonder what the difference is for them, hmmm hmmmm, i wonder.
oh well, just pokemon go :vote: for rapists i guess
Mainstream media being on their side, so when they say "Tara Read lied, she was never raped, she's in fact a fat b*tch payed by Russia" 99% of libs believe them.
"Willing into existence" and having control over the brainwashingmachine is the same. Libs are robots, they believe anything.
She said she loves Russia and said nice things about Putin in 2018. That's pretty much their case against her.
When Mother Jones lets you near the opinion piece, but not near the interns.
Some poor journalism grad that thinks writing for the Murdoch Press or the NYT for minimum wage is somehow "selling out" less than a full time gig with Russia Today.
Drum as a last name, what do we do with drums again? I drank too much and can't remember.
Stack magazines on them because we haven't practiced in months?
Literally putting her on this list (if in good faith,which, idk this writer well enough to say) is more insane than she would be even if you assumed she was lying and a con artist. That's not insane, it's unethical. But being so psychotically obsessed with defending democrats or defeating Trump you live in a different reality than other people is legitimately insane.
Drum supported the 2003 Iraq War in its early stages, but just before the United States launched its attack, he changed his mind. He said, "Before the war started I switched to opposition on practical grounds (i.e., that George W. Bush's approach was incapable of accomplishing the goals it was meant to accomplish). Since then, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that, in fact, I should have opposed it all along on philosophical grounds: namely that it was a fundamentally flawed concept and had no chance of working even if it had been competently executed."
nazi imperialist only opposes genocide because it's a "philosophically flawed concept". I don't know what this thing is but it's not human!
Drum supported the 2003 Iraq War in its early stages, but just before the United States launched its attack, he changed his mind.
So he changed his mind after going to war was a done deal and his assistance in convincing the American public of the Bush administration's lies was no longer needed. Isn't that convenient. Also weird how he doesn't adress the fact that the entire case for the war was built on phony charges, which was openly called out by all of the world, yet a majority of Americans and Brits still believed in Iraq's WMDs. I wonder how he wrote about these accusations back in the day when he was still fully on board with lighting half of the Middle East on fire instead of opposing it "on practical grounds".
I'm sure he didn't have any ideological opposition to the US levelling Libya. He also has a nice article talking about how US military spending is down ackshually (if you measure on a per person basis and adjust it for inflation, apparently).
So another imperialist tool masquerading as a 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' assclown.
How did this get past the editorial board? Are staff writers free to publish whatever as long as it passes a spellcheck?
Jesus even if there WERE reasons to doubt here this would still be a fucked thing to say
