Kellyanne joins the #metoo movement. Finally a Trumper who can relate to what many women unfortunately deal with: Errr...maybe not: “I don’t expect Judge Kavanaugh, or Jake Tapper, or Jeff Flake or anybody to be held responsible for that. You have to be responsible for your own conduct,” she continued. https://nypost.com/2018/09/30/kellyanne-conway-says-shes-a-sexual-assault-victim/
Who's the 'he'? I thought that was a woman? Isn't that right? She's implying that she was a 'party girl', (as the phrase used to have it), isn't she? What am I missing?
Conversation I had with my mom a while back, maybe within the last year, about a place she worked at for several years. At some point, the boss began boinking one of her coworkers. It happened that the position opened up, and she got promoted. Not that she was great, but she was capable. But as I was recounting the memory of my mom telling me this back when it was happening, I recalled her doing nothing. I asked her why, and her response was that there was nothing she felt she could have done without jeopardizing her job/career. This was late 1980s/early 1990s. Reading on many personal accounts, and even some research, my mom's experience fits in with the norm, that women were not going to be believed or be considered trouble for saying something.
My questions would be: So? Who the f*ck cares? This has precisely NOTHING to do with whether or not Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted and attempted to rape her.
I understand that and yeah, it's obvious a lot of people keep quiet in certain situations as to not jeopardize their livelihood / careers. And I don't blame them. But you can't project that onto every situation. Obviously what Kavanaugh did (or probably did) in College was wrong, but you can't assume he acted that way throughout his professional career later on. Perhaps there are cases with women that never spoke up but perhaps there weren't. But you can't throw him into that bucket unless somebody speaks up.
3 times not a charm, Track: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/30/us...x.html?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQECAEoAQ%3D%3D
That's what I thought: She broke what law? She violated whose dignity? Has she ever claimed to be super-virtuous?
The problem with that is it suggests a dramatic change in his beliefs. In high school and college, he apparently saw women as some sort of object. Mind, not all women, but when inhibitions were down, that is how he behaved. Once he got to his professional life, he worked against women (H Clinton in particular and his staunch anti-abortion support). Additionally, he has never stated that he might have acted in an "inappropriate" way, or that he was sorry and has worked to make amends in other areas of his life in support of women or women's rights. No, the whole of who he is is somebody who is, generally, anti-woman, and he fits the pattern of many others.
You seem to be describing a situation where two, (presumably, adult), individuals decided to have sex and one gave the other one an advantage in the workplace. Leaving aside the sexual element, isn't that actually quite common... two people getting in better than two other people? I'm not sure what the issue is here but maybe I've misunderstood.
Going back to my original statement, which was just explaining Graham's remark which was completely out of context twisting it's meaning, I don't see how any of this is relevant other than pure speculation. I really thought you were going to point me to actual allegations made about him regarding sexual misconduct later in his life. I don't see how being anti-abortion has anything to do with someone who's capable of committing rape. I wouldn't even simplify it as being anti-women. It's a complex issue. His stance on abortion, is that what you refer as him working against women ? I don't know his history with H. Clinton.
I'm thinking we should start a conspiracy theory, where there's going to be an ELE (extinction level event - you know, a dinosaur killer meteor or the sun is going to go nova or something), and the global elites are going to build a spaceship, an ark if you will, to escape the planet before it becomes uninhabitable. And only the global elitest of the elites will be allowed on the ark - you know, the Jews, of course, and Soros, and the Clintons, and the Rothschilds, and, you know, all those elites. And the location of this ark being built will be leaked to the conspiracy theorists, and it won't be well defended because that would draw too much attention to it, and maybe a few thousand second-amendment-enabled patriots could go and hijack this thing and use it to escape the planet. And here's the real conspiracy theory - we should ACTUALLY BUILD A ********ING ARK and let them hijack it and leave the planet. It will be expensive, but totally worth it.
Wouldn't work. They are good at outrage but as experience shows when they plan demonstrations and the like, you can't get any of them to leave their state.
That's why the guy who came up from NC to investigate Pizzagate was so confused. He didn't know what a basement was.
The thing I forgot to mention (because typing on a phone and uploading the file is a pain) is the lady with Bill Clinton is Senator Kirsten Gellibrand (definitely not Dr. Ford). I'm going to give my friend a week before pointing it out