Thursday, August 13, 2020

Kamala Averts Her Eyes When Sleepy Joe Gets Grabby



Friends, it's no big secret that Joe Biden likes to touch women and girls.  There's a time and a place for everything, though, and even Sleepy Joe has admitted that sometimes his hands have roved a little too often and a little too far and wide.  Lest we forget, however, Biden has been accused of more than just "inappropriate touching".  He's also been accused of sexual assault.  


Back when she was running for the Democratic nomination, and Joe Biden looked like the political version of roadkill, the Kamster made it clear that she believed his accusers.  In other words, she thought him guilty of a serious crime and a career-ending outrage.  Now that Biden is the Dem's presidential nominee, though, and now that Kamala Harris is his right-hand-woman, she isn't so sure.  In fact, she'd rather talk about Joe's fantastic record on women's issues.  In other words, she'd rather change the subject.


This article brilliantly exposes Kamala for the hypocrite and opportunist that she is.  Will the media ask her and Sleepy Joe hard questions about these accusations of sexual assault?  Presumably, no.  That's old news, and it's a distraction from the parade of baseless accusations against President Trump that are the substance of "journalism" these days.  Nevertheless, you and I know better.  We know a slimeball when we see one.  Or two. 


  1. I bet Joe was all the rage back in the drive in theater days.

  2. Let's see. We were off to a great start with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and now we have Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!

  3. So, do you want a President who likes to touch women, or one who likes to touch men? In Joe's defense, he is a regular guy who probably finds it difficult not to grab boobs and bottoms. Sorry to be crude, if that's how anyone interprets these remarks. Do women want to touch men? Do women want to touch women? How about those thoughts in people's heads when they walk around and have fantasies about how this person or that person would perform sexually. Of course, civilized behavior dictates that we have to keep our hands to ourselves unless invited to do otherwise. So Joe is basically a normal guy who has to watch where his hands go. Looks like my remarks are out of whack with Marxist behavior, but that's the way it goes. I wonder if Marx was a "touchy feely" type dude?

  4. Let me clarify what I just said about Joe, lest there be misunderstandings. Joe is a man of his generation, meaning that he came of age during the 1950s and 1960s. It would be safe to say that sexual mores and attitudes in this country were very different from what they are now, radically different in many ways.

    Joe's generation of men believed that it was perfectly acceptable to seduce women, preferably through persuasion, and to get all the sex they could. I doubt if woman really cared for this attitude but it took about the next 50 years for them to fully express their displeasure. Back then, it was okay to date a girl and after feeding her go to some parking spot and try to "get in her pants", at least by the second date.

    Sorry to offend anyone, but this is the way it was. That does not mean that it was right or anything else, it was just the way it was. Joe grew up during these times, and for him it was probably normal, as it was for millions of men.

  5. Ray, I'm not sure that most of your observations about Boomer mating rituals are relevant, because Biden isn't accused of heavy petting at the drive-in -- he's accused of inappropriate touching AT PUBLIC EVENTS. Personally, I agree with you that, a man, especially a politician, who likes to back-slap and touch people's arms and shoulders and what not, isn't necessarily a "creep", and not so long ago such behavior would have been perfectly normal, and in some settings it may still be so. It's a fine line that separates normal touching from abnormal touching, but we've all seen Sleepy Joe pictured doing the latter, and he's admitted to it, closed.

    The issue of sexual assault is somewhat different. This occurs, generally, in private, and it's always been socially stigmatized and illegal, although in the past it might have been far less likely to be prosecuted. If Joe Biden did all the things that Tara Reade says he did, then he's more than a touchy-feely guy. He's a criminal and a pervert. That ought to matter, especially to a party that says it supports women and believes them implicitly. It ought to matter to anyone civilized, in fact!

    Having said all that, I don't necessarily believe what Tara Reade claims. I believe that everyone, including Joe Biden, is innocent until proven guilty. But I also think that, once someone like Kamala Harris endorses Reade's horrific allegations, she can't then turn around and say, "Oh, just kidding. Joe's great. I'm proud to join his team." That doesn't wash.

    My overall point: when you're accused of a serious misdeed, you can be innocent, or you can be guilty, but you can't be both simultaneously. Am I out in left field here? I don't think so.

    1. DR. NICK

      My point is that American men who came of age in the 1950s were very aggressive. For many women on a date in a remote place in a car is was "put out or get out". Joe is a product of that generation. Nowadays, it has turned in the opposite direction where a guy has to ask for permission on every move he makes. So it has gone from one extreme to another. Lots of forced sex back in the 1950s. Today it would be called rape, but "back in the day" it was called dating. I can't remember what satire magazine it was who mocks the 1950s with characters like: "Hot Roco Hot Farts" and his girlfriend "Attractive Cynthia Jello F**k" plus "Harold Hard On". Even in later generations this aggressive behavior was demonstrated in the movie "Saturday Night Fever" which by the way is based on a real night club in Brooklyn, where guys hope to score with some chick. So Joe came out of that generation and he must have picked up some habits from it.

  6. Yikes, Ray...I say yikes because I agree to a point.

    ...totally agree Dr. Waddy; "But I also think that, once someone like Kamala Harris endorses Reade's horrific allegations, she can't then turn around and say, "Oh, just kidding. Joe's great. I'm proud to join his team." That doesn't wash."

    Agree, I don't get how she can stand up there and say she believes the women and then turn around and joint the team. Oh, I get it, POWER. Then again, I firmly believe she is very cunning and knows what she is doing. Remember, this is the very same woman who refused to prosecute the pedophiles in the Catholic Church, and so on. I firmly believe she is the one who is running for President, not Joe. What is that word, in de jure? I think that is the word.

  7. LINDA


  8. Dr.Waddy etal from Jack: Linda you are right; acquisition of POWER is all for the dims and certainly Harris; she could hide behind a corkscrew. Two things about her appear obvious to me: she is dyed in the wool , now mainstream, radical riding the doomed dim party vehicle and doing obeisance to the radical Alinskyite maxim "by whatever means necessary": "join hands with the despised? No problem because".. . . "He will not be in charge; in fact he will be summarily marginalized he bleats, and he will be purged". Can you imagine his first cabinet meeting with a cabinet full of man haters and their male toadies (I mean Phil Donahue is available if Marlo permits) and a diverse gathering of compliant(though not to wimpy joe) worker ants?

  9. "if he bleats" as does a doting bovid.

  10. Ray, you're still assuming that Sleepy Joe did to Ms. Reade what she says he did. I haven't the foggiest idea if that's so. Incidentally, given Biden's "winning" personality, it would surprise me greatly if he hadn't had numerous affairs. Where are the media reports about them?

    Linda, "cunning" is a good word for Kamala. She MUST have charmed the pants off ole Joe (metaphorically speaking) to get him to offer her the big prize. You're right -- she's effectively on the fast track to the presidency. And, lest we forget, she's the only Dem who stood up to Joe and dinged him as a "racist" during the primary campaign. Nonetheless, he forgave her. Her guile must be legendary!

    Jack, I agree that Harris is "radical", in the sense that the whole Democratic Party is radical, demi-Marxist, and utterly contemptuous of any and all opposition. Is she IDEOLOGICALLY motivated, though, rather than power-hungry? That's hard to say. Even Kamala may not be able to tell the difference, at this stage.

  11. Dr. Waddy et al: For sure she must do radical in order to have the base support her in November. I don't think Biden's sudden risewasthe result of a common sense awakening by dims regretting their party's disgraceful embrace of marxist sentiment. Rather, they realized they couldn't nominate a crazy for the top spot and win and that spineless joewould willingly take on the real standard bearer, a fully to be expected vindictive, doctrinaire, incipiently totalitarian Bolshevik. But you ask a very good question in wondering what Harris would be like after her assured succession; would she simply sit back and enjoy the perks and make "progressive" gestures ala the last savior, Obama? Would she instead be an implacable enabler of "equity" - getting even no matter the usage of unequal totaltarian dictates? Go figure, I think.

  12. Yes, Jack -- it's a puzzlement, and probably even Kamala couldn't tell us with certainty what sort of President she would be. For instance, I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the Dems' radical proposals would do real, NOTICEABLE damage to the country, and in short order too. For starters, would the Dems be willing to torpedo the economy to achieve their vision of equity and justice? Maybe they would, so long as they would be the ones picking up the pieces. Only time will tell -- or maybe, if God is merciful, it won't.