TakeYouToTasker

What kind of half-assed nonsense is this? In a free society, the accuser does not deserve to be believed. The cornerstone of the entire concept of a liberal criminal justice is the notion that the accused must be believed until it can be proven otherwise. Full stop. Also, it's amazing to me that you can't see the fact that everything you've said on the topic is rife with bigotry and prejudice. You've prejudged a man you've never met, never interacted with in any way, because of the school he went to, because that school is associated with a life of some financial privilege; and what you've prejudged him with is a propensity for the worst types of criminal behavior absent any evidence. You're acting as an unapologetic bigot, no different than a Klansman.

What is at the cornerstone of the foundation of your morality? Having read your perspectives here for years, I know it to be your belief in Christ as your Lord and Savior. The supporters of Dianne Feinstein, and the Senator herself, hold no such views. To them, what they view as the ends of their preferred policy are the foundation of their core morality. They have named themselves God in the pursuit of their goals, and there is no higher moral achievement then actualizing them. As such, in their eyes, they are acting morally.

Raise your hand if you're in any way surprised that Senate Democrats are insisting that law enforcement act as an arm of their Party? After all, why shouldn't they have that expectation? It's been the norm for years now.

There's a good reason Feinstein is furiously back tracking, and saying things like "it may not be entirely truthful".

The President is well aware that the accuser made the exact same accusation against his prior nominee, and that the Republicans hold that evidence. The most advantageous thing for the President, and the Republican Party, is for her to testify, and then be prosecuted for perjury.

That's not how the impeachment process works. It's a bi-cameral process with each legislative body having a distinct role, each tasked with that role as part of the Constitutional process of checks and balances, the House intended to be the direct will of the People more subject to populist whims, the Senate the steadying hand representing the interests of the individual state governments. The House essentially votes for the impeachment process to proceed to the Senate: it's really no more than a referral for prosecution. The Senate, whom represents the interests of the various governments which make up the United States, then examines the referral, and decides to convict, or not. President Clinton was impeached (referred to the Senate for conviction) which they declined to do. Bill Clinton was never convicted of anything.

I wish I lived through I time where the political environment would allow me to be absolutely stunned by this. Sadly, I'm not even a bit surprised. If true this should be weaponized against both the Democrats and the # metoo movement for the remainder of there existence.

So... Let me get this straight... In today's environment we are supposed to throw away the presumption of innocence, and name Judge Kavanaugh a sexual predator, because he's being accused of something, possibly, that happened 30 years ago if it happened, maybe, that the accuser, a CIA operative with multiple George Soros links, who also happens to be vocally and virulently anti-Trump, who refuses to testify about the incident under oath, but told a US Senator who was directly in the pocket of the Chinese government, and the WaPo which is a direct CIA asset, months ago but they intentionally withheld throughout the confirmation process. Color me unconvinced.

I'm hoping someone comes forward in his feed responses with accusations of assault. It's an absurdly dangerous position to start espousing, as it seeks to undo the entire liberal legal foundation of innocent until proven guilty. No, the accuser does not deserve to be believed. The accused does, because we don't destroy people's lives or imprison them without direct evidence of wrong doing. Full stop.

This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Stop honoring them, and disallow them the use of the NFL, the team they played for, and Hall of Fame to promote themselves. Easy enough.

@Sig1Hunter Hey, Siggy, I !@#$ed your dad.

I don't have dialogs with passive aggressive !@#$-muppets who lie. I smash them with hammers. You're getting a return volley for some nonsense you started, and are now blaming others. !@#$ you. Own your words, !@#$-muppet.

I'm saying that in this very thread you have demonstrated that you are a hack and a liar, and have represented approximately zero of the characteristics you claim to champion. Did I stutter, mother!@#$er?

You're a hack and a liar, and you personally represent approximately zero of the characteristics you claim to champion.

Your experience with women is drastically limited if you don't think there are cabals of women who do the same exact thing in the absence of men. Women, until they reach the age of 30, and often decide to take different life paths and raise children, earn more than men do in the same professions. Women are more likely to go to, and graduate from, college than men. Men have almost no rights in legal issues surrounding custody and adoption of their own children. This is only a short, and not nearly comprehensive list. And women have women's clubs that won't admit men. The difference? The women's clubs are legally sanctioned, and publicly endorsed. This is a horseshit argument in which you substitute a well known predator for "men in general" and a rare but spectacular event like a shark attack for "women in general". It's a logical fallacy, and I outright reject it as such. You'll have to demonstrate that bad actors amongst men are more prevalent than bad actor amongst women. !@#$ you. You're making a poor and intellectually dishonest argument. You've opened this door, now stay here for the beating. Demonstrate this. You've made a claim, now back it up. You're claiming a "rape culture" which impugns men in general as bad actors, and are making an additional claim that women are somehow different, and their malfeasance "is not the norm". Defend your "women are as pure as the driven snow" narrative. Idiot. Horseshit. This has been debunked numerous times, and relies on reporting in which an unwanted touch or kiss (normal explorative human sexuality) is considered sexual assault. It's disingenuous garbage used to advance an intersectionalist narrative at the behest of Third Wave Feminism, which is a supremacy movement. And again, I reject it outright. Are you so stupid and naïve that you think women haven't developed their own weapons, as men have, over the centuries? This is not my opinion: this is mainstream psychology and human development studies into the pathology of the sexes. However, if you want to continue to advance your ignorance of accepted normal human psychology in snarky tones place of an argument, I'm happy to laugh at you while I kick your ass.

No, what I'm doing is coming to the realization that roughly 3/4 of the population is not going to allow the fringes of a dying political movement (and it is dying) to permanently weaponize their own existence against them.

It's hitting the wall. The backlash is already beginning to hurt women in the workplace, as men are becoming less willing to work with them, and is doing so in a way that is already measurable, which is extraordinary given the newness of the #metoo nonsense. Natural demographics alone work against this as roughly half the population is male, and a sizable portion of the female population are mothers to sons. It won't be much longer before this is tossed on the scrap heap with "racist".

Women are not oppressed in the United States in 2018; Third Wave Feminism is a supremacy movement, and has nothing to do with equality. As to your last sentence, you are incredibly naïve. What would lead you to believe that there are a greater proportion of bad actors amongst men, willing to rape a woman; then there are bad actors amongst women, willing to make false or grossly exaggerated claims (an unreciprocated attempt of a kiss is not a sexual assault) if it provides them a tangible benefit? Women are not powerless; quite the contrary, women use the weapons they have been trained in for thousands of years, developed during times when they were oppressed: guile and deceit. And to be clear, I'm not saying all women. I'm talking about the bad actors in the gender, just as you are of the opposite gender.

You think this ongoing demonization of men, and the attempt to pathologize normal male sexuality is a political winner? I mean, maybe Democrats think they can win without carrying men, or women who are the mothers of sons. Much like the ongoing shouts of racism, this is going to backfire spectacularly; and in the process is going to set the progress of women who actually have been the victims of actual sexual assault.

Clinton was never convicted of anything. He wasn't removed from office. This is also markedly different than anything President Clinton endued. President Trump's term began with accusations that his Presidency was illegitimate. Let that sink in. Rather than accept the results of free and fair elections, the Democratic Party has normalized rejecting election results in favor of criminal investigations initiated without evidence of a crime, but rather for politically motivated reasons. You don't think that's a dangerous precedent? You don't think this is how all of our elections will proceed going forward?

If there was any evidence of collusion, the FBI would have been able to determine that there was collusion. The fact that they could not determine it means they had no evidence of it. That's what those words mean. Please do. Greg has just provided it again, and tagged you in the post he provided it not 15 minutes ago. I encourage you to research who Manafort was working with, and in what capacity, during the time frame the court documents surrounding his indictment speak to. It's no longer even a matter of innocence. He is, by any objective standard given what we know directly from Mueller's own interactions with Trump surrounding the investigation, and the indictments that have come out of it, and Lisa Page's congressional testimony, that there was no collusion with Russia. What it is now about is whether or not the Federal bureaucracy, intel apparatus, and prosecutorial arm, working in concert with a political party, should be permitted to manufacture charges for political purposes, sans evidence, and use them to undermine the legitimacy of a duly elected President, and in the process seek our charges to lay on private citizens for whom no evidence of wrongdoing existed before the special investigation began. Also, a point I raised which you haven't yet addressed: From this point forward, every President we elect in this country will have their term begin with accusations of criminality, and their term accompanied by a special prosecutor whose goal is to imprison the family and associates of the President. This is what the Democratic Party has normalized. Do you believe this is healthy for the Republic?

Lisa Page was a trial attorney on Mueller's team, and a high ranking lawyer within the FBI. The fact that she testified before Congress that the FBI had no evidence of collusion prior to the Mueller investigation speaks directly to her primary knowledge. If she didn't have primary knowledge, she would have testified that she had no primary knowledge. It certainly would have been more legally advantageous for her to do so. The multiple shifts have surrounded the beginnings of the FBI's investigation into Donald Trump. There have been at least three official shifts in what the FBI claims have prompted the investigation, and when the investigation began. You can read the source documents surrounding the various plea deals. They have all been sourced for you here, on this website. None of the plea agreements reach into the timeline where the players involved were associated with the Trump campaign or Administration. IE. they have nothing to do with Donald Trump. Consider this: The day that Paul Manafort was indicted, Tony Podesta shuttered the doors on his successful DC lobby firm and crawled into the deepest hole he could find, and hasn't come out since.

What do you make of the fact that Lisa Page has admitted in her testimony before Congress that the FBI had no evidence of collusion prior to the Mueller investigation? What do you make of the multiple shifts in the FBI's presentation of the timeline of when the investigation into Russian collusion began? What do you make of the notion that none of the prosecutions have anything at all to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election, and are private citizens unassociated with the original purpose of the special prosecutor, and instead have been charged/convicted based on the initiation of a fishing expedition launched with the intent of finding criminality in private citizens unprompted by evidence of their wrongdoing?

Likely made in Asian and South American sweatshops by children, if I had to guess.