Maybe if people on the right had more confidence that reporters were not "secret democratic party political advocates", they might be more open to closed door meetings of people of the opposite sex.

Change the perception that they're not cheerleading for the DNC, but that is going to be hard to change if they only consume GOP positive media.

Anonymous wrote:You people are ridiculous.

One observation I have that may be a bit inconvenient for those of you decrying this decision as "sexist" or "misogynistic"......

I don't recall any woman accusing Mike Pence of inappropriate conduct. Why might that be?

Because he's closeted? Or at least because he hasn't done anything untoward in his personal life.

You people are ridiculous.

One observation I have that may be a bit inconvenient for those of you decrying this decision as "sexist" or "misogynistic"......

I don't recall any woman accusing Mike Pence of inappropriate conduct. Why might that be?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is like f-ing sharia law. Disgusting and indefensible.

Not even close.

If she doesn't want to have another male colleague present, she can refuse the interview. Simple.

Nobody is forcing her to do anything she doesn't want to do.

Did you even read that post before you hit "submit"?

Tell me how that's NOT a taliban policy.

You are seriously in need of psychiatric help. Wow.
-DP

NP-so your answer when someone asks you to explain how this GOP candidate's policy differs from the Taliban's restrictions on women is to hurl insults?

That you can equate a man saying he doesn’t want to be alone with a particular woman, to the TALIBAN’s medieval restrictions on all women says more about you than any insult ever could.

So ... did you not read the article? Or are you saying Foster is lying? He specifically said that this was not about a particular woman but that he is following the policy of a Christian fundamentalist regarding treatment of all women.

Where did the article state this?
He did say this rule is out of respect for his wife.

Why would his wife care if he met alone, for example, with a 90 year old grandma?

Still no answer to this.

Folks like this don't think a 90 year old is a "woman" - "woman" to them means someone they would like to f*ck.

So they could be a little less stringent with their chaperone requirement. Any woman who is beyond the scope of what they think is f*ckable should be able to meet alone with them, right?

Right? I mean, if we're going to say that a straight man can meet alone with another straight man because no one would believe the one would assault the other if that claim arose, then surely it should be fine for a straight man to meet with a woman who was outside his definition of attractive, because then no one would ever believe any accusations. I mean, Trump himself told us that he wouldn't have assaulted Jean Carroll because she wasn't his type.

Seems like sound logic to me! Of course we'd need men to take tests prior to meeting any woman to make sure their expressed preferences are the same as their actual preferences. Imagine the horrors if they claimed to like 20-something blondes but we later discovered that actually 90 year old grandmas really WERE what turned them on. That would be quite a pickle, leave those poor men open to all sorts of false rape charges. So before any man could have a public life he'd have to submit to a battery of tests whereby we show them photos of all sorts of women and measure which get them going - raise their heart rates, raise other parts of their bodies - so that we can be sure we are keeping the right women chaperoned. No need for the reporter to hire a eunuch if she's not even his type.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is like f-ing sharia law. Disgusting and indefensible.

Not even close.

If she doesn't want to have another male colleague present, she can refuse the interview. Simple.

Nobody is forcing her to do anything she doesn't want to do.

Did you even read that post before you hit "submit"?

Tell me how that's NOT a taliban policy.

You are seriously in need of psychiatric help. Wow.
-DP

NP-so your answer when someone asks you to explain how this GOP candidate's policy differs from the Taliban's restrictions on women is to hurl insults?

That you can equate a man saying he doesn’t want to be alone with a particular woman, to the TALIBAN’s medieval restrictions on all women says more about you than any insult ever could.

So ... did you not read the article? Or are you saying Foster is lying? He specifically said that this was not about a particular woman but that he is following the policy of a Christian fundamentalist regarding treatment of all women.

Where did the article state this?
He did say this rule is out of respect for his wife.

Why would his wife care if he met alone, for example, with a 90 year old grandma?

Still no answer to this.

Folks like this don't think a 90 year old is a "woman" - "woman" to them means someone they would like to f*ck.

So they could be a little less stringent with their chaperone requirement. Any woman who is beyond the scope of what they think is f*ckable should be able to meet alone with them, right?

Right? I mean, if we're going to say that a straight man can meet alone with another straight man because no one would believe the one would assault the other if that claim arose, then surely it should be fine for a straight man to meet with a woman who was outside his definition of attractive, because then no one would ever believe any accusations. I mean, Trump himself told us that he wouldn't have assaulted Jean Carroll because she wasn't his type.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is like f-ing sharia law. Disgusting and indefensible.

Not even close.

If she doesn't want to have another male colleague present, she can refuse the interview. Simple.

Nobody is forcing her to do anything she doesn't want to do.

Did you even read that post before you hit "submit"?

Tell me how that's NOT a taliban policy.

You are seriously in need of psychiatric help. Wow.
-DP

NP-so your answer when someone asks you to explain how this GOP candidate's policy differs from the Taliban's restrictions on women is to hurl insults?

That you can equate a man saying he doesn’t want to be alone with a particular woman, to the TALIBAN’s medieval restrictions on all women says more about you than any insult ever could.

So ... did you not read the article? Or are you saying Foster is lying? He specifically said that this was not about a particular woman but that he is following the policy of a Christian fundamentalist regarding treatment of all women.

Where did the article state this?
He did say this rule is out of respect for his wife.

Why would his wife care if he met alone, for example, with a 90 year old grandma?

Still no answer to this.

Folks like this don't think a 90 year old is a "woman" - "woman" to them means someone they would like to f*ck.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is like f-ing sharia law. Disgusting and indefensible.

Not even close.

If she doesn't want to have another male colleague present, she can refuse the interview. Simple.

Nobody is forcing her to do anything she doesn't want to do.

Did you even read that post before you hit "submit"?

Tell me how that's NOT a taliban policy.

You are seriously in need of psychiatric help. Wow.
-DP

NP-so your answer when someone asks you to explain how this GOP candidate's policy differs from the Taliban's restrictions on women is to hurl insults?

That you can equate a man saying he doesn’t want to be alone with a particular woman, to the TALIBAN’s medieval restrictions on all women says more about you than any insult ever could.

So ... did you not read the article? Or are you saying Foster is lying? He specifically said that this was not about a particular woman but that he is following the policy of a Christian fundamentalist regarding treatment of all women.

Where did the article state this?
He did say this rule is out of respect for his wife.

Why would his wife care if he met alone, for example, with a 90 year old grandma?

Still no answer to this.

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.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

It's untrue that Trump's presidency was derailed by one allegation. It's untrue that Kavanaugh's career was derailed by one allegation. The politicians who've had their careers derailed by allegations are the ones with pictures, videos, and texts demonstrating the truth behind multiple allegations. And sometimes even that doesn't do anything.

Sorrynotsorry, women aren't going to leave public life because men might made uncomfortable.

No one’s asking women to “leave public life,” dolt. Nice hyperbole.

What exactly do you think it means to say that women are so untrustworthy that a reporter can't interview a man running to be governor without a chaperone tagging along to ensure she doesn't falsely accuse him of rape? Do you think that society has room for women to be, say, elected officials? Lawyers? Doctors? Reporters? How do you think that works, exactly?

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.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

+1

Again, what about the PPP’s post is untrue? Specifics, please.
-DP

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.

This is patently untrue.

What, precisely, is untrue?

It's untrue that Trump's presidency was derailed by one allegation. It's untrue that Kavanaugh's career was derailed by one allegation. The politicians who've had their careers derailed by allegations are the ones with pictures, videos, and texts demonstrating the truth behind multiple allegations. And sometimes even that doesn't do anything.

Sorrynotsorry, women aren't going to leave public life because men might made uncomfortable.

No one’s asking women to “leave public life,” dolt. Nice hyperbole.

Meeeeee Tooooo. Smart man

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:me too era has consequences....

About time men faced consequences for harassing and assaulting women.

Sure. Men who actually do those things. Everyone else, not so much. Sorry to ruin your revenge fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:me too era has consequences....

Indeed it does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SMDH

Leave it to liberals to paint the narrative that he is choosing to make this decision because HE can't control himself.

It is thanks to the #BelieveHer at all costs movement that has forced men to make decisions like this.

He is protecting himself. I can't blame him.

Men make false allegations too. Why not just have an aide with him at all times?

We're still waiting for you to back up this assertion

Yep. Crickets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:me too era has consequences....

About time men faced consequences for harassing and assaulting women.

For every false accusation by a woman there are 100 rapists who go unprosecuted for lack of evidence.

Just thinking of how many women would lodge false rape accusations about their male chaperones now, too. Maybe we should require them to be eunuchs. Does that solve the problem?