Robert Foster, GOP governor candidate, denies woman reporter access because of her gender

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

Oh really, just an allegation? Donald is still in the White House with a couple dozen credible allegations, so...

Also, why do you want a compulsory Christian nation? Why are you bent on enforcing biblical baloney rather than expecting men not to rape? That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? Men can’t be trusted so women should be chaperoned as they had to be in biblical days?

Oh, FFS.
"Compulsory Christian nation?" Who the hell said anything about that.
Let me clarify for you what I am saying.............

He did not want to give any appearance of impropriety. He did not want to have to defend himself against false allegations from his competition. He did not want to have to defend himself from rumors that might be started. It is THAT simple.

You are unhinged.

Pence, Pompeo, most of the Evangelicals who are bending the judiciary to their agenda. Are you not paying attention?

Give it up.
We are talking about the decision of a candidate here. Nobody said anything about "Christian nation."

A guy who requires women to be chaperoned is a religious nutbag, full stop.

Nobody is requiring a woman to be chaperoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

Oh really, just an allegation? Donald is still in the White House with a couple dozen credible allegations, so...

Also, why do you want a compulsory Christian nation? Why are you bent on enforcing biblical baloney rather than expecting men not to rape? That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? Men can’t be trusted so women should be chaperoned as they had to be in biblical days?

Oh, FFS.
"Compulsory Christian nation?" Who the hell said anything about that.
Let me clarify for you what I am saying.............

He did not want to give any appearance of impropriety. He did not want to have to defend himself against false allegations from his competition. He did not want to have to defend himself from rumors that might be started. It is THAT simple.

You are unhinged.

Pence, Pompeo, most of the Evangelicals who are bending the judiciary to their agenda. Are you not paying attention?

Give it up.
We are talking about the decision of a candidate here. Nobody said anything about "Christian nation."

A guy who requires women to be chaperoned is a religious nutbag, full stop.

Nobody is requiring a woman to be chaperoned.

The topic of this thread is a candidate for governor in Mississippi requiring a woman to be chaperoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

Oh really, just an allegation? Donald is still in the White House with a couple dozen credible allegations, so...

Also, why do you want a compulsory Christian nation? Why are you bent on enforcing biblical baloney rather than expecting men not to rape? That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? Men can’t be trusted so women should be chaperoned as they had to be in biblical days?

Oh, FFS.
"Compulsory Christian nation?" Who the hell said anything about that.
Let me clarify for you what I am saying.............

He did not want to give any appearance of impropriety. He did not want to have to defend himself against false allegations from his competition. He did not want to have to defend himself from rumors that might be started. It is THAT simple.

You are unhinged.

Pence, Pompeo, most of the Evangelicals who are bending the judiciary to their agenda. Are you not paying attention?

Give it up.
We are talking about the decision of a candidate here. Nobody said anything about "Christian nation."

A guy who requires women to be chaperoned is a religious nutbag, full stop.

Nobody is requiring a woman to be chaperoned.

Read the OP, clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the "Pence Rule" is harmful and discriminatory.

It's not like women like to make frivolous claims and undergo the media and public scrutiny.

At first I thought you were being facetious, but sadly I see you’re serious. That you still believe there aren’t women who do exactly that - make frivolous claims - means you’re part of the problem. I don’t blame him one bit. That’s what happens when women see a #metoo moment around every corner.
-a woman

No one would voluntarily put themselves through it unless it was real. Who was the last one to credibly be frivolous?

LOL.
Julie Swetnik. Towanna Brawley, Emma Sulkowicz (Mattress girl) - there are tons of cases.

https://reason.com/2018/10/17/seneca-valley-mean-girls-false-sexual/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/47107/man-falsely-accused-sexual-assault-teen-girl-amanda-prestigiacomo

Just two in a google search. It happens.

There are far more Epsteins out there than false accusations. Law enforcement doesn’t take ANY action against sexual assault

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a related matter.........

I was a resource teacher who worked with students one on one.
I was cautioned by the administration to never close the classroom door when I had a student with me so no false allegations could be made by students.
Yeah, this happens too.

I don't blame the guy.

There is a difference between not closing a door (or having a door with a window, which is what most schools do) and requiring a female professional have a male chaperone as if she were a burka wearing teenager in Kabul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the "Pence Rule" is harmful and discriminatory.

It's not like women like to make frivolous claims and undergo the media and public scrutiny.

At first I thought you were being facetious, but sadly I see you’re serious. That you still believe there aren’t women who do exactly that - make frivolous claims - means you’re part of the problem. I don’t blame him one bit. That’s what happens when women see a #metoo moment around every corner.
-a woman

No one would voluntarily put themselves through it unless it was real. Who was the last one to credibly be frivolous?

LOL.
Julie Swetnik. Towanna Brawley, Emma Sulkowicz (Mattress girl) - there are tons of cases.

https://reason.com/2018/10/17/seneca-valley-mean-girls-false-sexual/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/47107/man-falsely-accused-sexual-assault-teen-girl-amanda-prestigiacomo

Just two in a google search. It happens.

5 out of every 1000 rapists go to jail. Take your faux concern and put it on a shelf with unprocessed rape kits. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody is requiring a woman to be chaperoned.

Curious, did you just throw that line out there without reading the article the OP of this thread posted? Do you have reading comprehension issues, or do you just jump on a partisan bandwagon for sport?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

Oh really, just an allegation? Donald is still in the White House with a couple dozen credible allegations, so...

Also, why do you want a compulsory Christian nation? Why are you bent on enforcing biblical baloney rather than expecting men not to rape? That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? Men can’t be trusted so women should be chaperoned as they had to be in biblical days?

Oh, FFS.
"Compulsory Christian nation?" Who the hell said anything about that.
Let me clarify for you what I am saying.............

He did not want to give any appearance of impropriety. He did not want to have to defend himself against false allegations from his competition. He did not want to have to defend himself from rumors that might be started. It is THAT simple.

You are unhinged.

Pence, Pompeo, most of the Evangelicals who are bending the judiciary to their agenda. Are you not paying attention?

Give it up.
We are talking about the decision of a candidate here. Nobody said anything about "Christian nation."

A guy who requires women to be chaperoned is a religious nutbag, full stop.

Nobody is requiring a woman to be chaperoned.

Read the OP, clown.

He is not requiring the woman to be chaperoned.
He is requiring another man be present when he is traveling with this woman.
That is not a woman being chaperoned.

[Anonymous]

Simple solution:

This dude doesn’t get coverage.

The end

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

Oh really, just an allegation? Donald is still in the White House with a couple dozen credible allegations, so...

Also, why do you want a compulsory Christian nation? Why are you bent on enforcing biblical baloney rather than expecting men not to rape? That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? Men can’t be trusted so women should be chaperoned as they had to be in biblical days?

Oh, FFS.
"Compulsory Christian nation?" Who the hell said anything about that.
Let me clarify for you what I am saying.............

He did not want to give any appearance of impropriety. He did not want to have to defend himself against false allegations from his competition. He did not want to have to defend himself from rumors that might be started. It is THAT simple.

You are unhinged.

Pence, Pompeo, most of the Evangelicals who are bending the judiciary to their agenda. Are you not paying attention?

Give it up.
We are talking about the decision of a candidate here. Nobody said anything about "Christian nation."

A guy who requires women to be chaperoned is a religious nutbag, full stop.

Nobody is requiring a woman to be chaperoned.

Read the OP, clown.

He is not requiring the woman to be chaperoned.
He is requiring another man be present when he is traveling with this woman.
That is not a woman being chaperoned.

You just defined what a chaperone is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I don't blame him a bit. All it takes is an allegation.
He didn't refuse her access. He told her that a male colleague would need to be present. Nothing at all wrong with that.

In this #MeToo era, one just cannot be too careful. Good for him.

Oh really, just an allegation? Donald is still in the White House with a couple dozen credible allegations, so...

Also, why do you want a compulsory Christian nation? Why are you bent on enforcing biblical baloney rather than expecting men not to rape? That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? Men can’t be trusted so women should be chaperoned as they had to be in biblical days?

Oh, FFS.
"Compulsory Christian nation?" Who the hell said anything about that.
Let me clarify for you what I am saying.............

He did not want to give any appearance of impropriety. He did not want to have to defend himself against false allegations from his competition. He did not want to have to defend himself from rumors that might be started. It is THAT simple.

You are unhinged.

Pence, Pompeo, most of the Evangelicals who are bending the judiciary to their agenda. Are you not paying attention?

Give it up.
We are talking about the decision of a candidate here. Nobody said anything about "Christian nation."

A guy who requires women to be chaperoned is a religious nutbag, full stop.

Nobody is requiring a woman to be chaperoned.

Read the OP, clown.

He is not requiring the woman to be chaperoned.
He is requiring another man be present when he is traveling with this woman.
That is not a woman being chaperoned.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chaperoned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution:

This dude doesn’t get coverage.

The end

I really think the guy is a rapist to be if he can’t be trusted alone with a woman without trying to have sexual with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He is not requiring the woman to be chaperoned.
He is requiring another man be present when he is traveling with this woman.
That is not a woman being chaperoned.

I think you know not the meaning of the word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the "Pence Rule" is harmful and discriminatory.

It's not like women like to make frivolous claims and undergo the media and public scrutiny.

At first I thought you were being facetious, but sadly I see you’re serious. That you still believe there aren’t women who do exactly that - make frivolous claims - means you’re part of the problem. I don’t blame him one bit. That’s what happens when women see a #metoo moment around every corner.
-a woman

No one would voluntarily put themselves through it unless it was real. Who was the last one to credibly be frivolous?

LOL.
Julie Swetnik. Towanna Brawley, Emma Sulkowicz (Mattress girl) - there are tons of cases.

https://reason.com/2018/10/17/seneca-valley-mean-girls-false-sexual/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/47107/man-falsely-accused-sexual-assault-teen-girl-amanda-prestigiacomo

Just two in a google search. It happens.

There are far more Epsteins out there than false accusations. Law enforcement doesn’t take ANY action against sexual assault

Nobody is disputing this.
How would YOU like to be a victim of false allegations? It just takes one.
And, yes, law enforcement DOES take action. WTH are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He is not requiring the woman to be chaperoned.
He is requiring another man be present when he is traveling with this woman.
That is not a woman being chaperoned.

I think you know not the meaning of the word.

Let's clear it up, shall we?

chap·er·one
/?SHap??r?n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a person who accompanies and looks after another person or group of people.
synonyms: companion, duenna, protectress, escort, governess, nursemaid, carer, keeper, protector, bodyguard, minder
"Aunt Millie went with her as chaperone"
verb
verb: chaperone; 3rd person present: chaperones; past tense: chaperoned; past participle: chaperoned; gerund or present participle: chaperoning; verb: chaperon; 3rd person present: chaperons
1.
accompany and look after or supervise.
"she chaperoned the children at all times"
synonyms: accompany, escort, attend, shepherd, watch over, take care of, keep an eye on, protect, defend, guard, safeguard, shield, keep from harm, mind, screen, shelter, mother, nursemaid, nanny
"she was chaperoned at the ball by her mother"


I will say it again.... he wasn't saying she needed to be chaperoned. He was not seeking someone to supervise HER. He wanted another person there for HIS sake. To protect HIS reputation.

You people are totally unhinged.