Keith Ellison

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Just wondering, as I recall Cruz being harassed by far left activists that state they believe survivors, how Keith Ellison, accused domestic abuser, was elected the AG of Minnesota. Is it OK to beat women if you're a Democrat? Is it OK to not believe survivors if their attacker was a Democrat (I'm looking at you Bill Clinton). While obviously tongue in cheek the implications of this are rather disturbing. Apparently even believing women has become a partisan exercise. You shut the hell up Paula Jones!

[6andcounting]

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party investigated and determined the claims against him were "unsubstantiated".

[Belsnickel]

I called for his resignation when the news came out. I'm still not happy with him holding office, whether in government or the party. Unfortunately, not much I can do about it.

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2018, 01:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just wondering, as I recall Cruz being harassed by far left activists that state they believe survivors, how Keith Ellison, accused domestic abuser, was elected the AG of Minnesota. 

Here is how it happened.  There was an investigation and the alleged victim refused to cooperate.  The whole story was apparently BS.

This will come as a shock to some people who only get their news from one side, but very few liberals say we should believe a victim when there is no evidence to back up the claim.  Most liberals who were speaking up in support of Dr. Ford were just asking for an investigation.  Most did not say he was guilty.  Instead most said the allegations are enough to justify an investigation.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 03:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is how it happened.  There was an investigation and the alleged victim refused to cooperate.  The whole story was apparently BS.

This will come as a shock to some people who only get their news from one side, but very few liberals say we should believe a victim when there is no evidence to back up the claim.  Most liberals who were speaking up in support of Dr. Ford were just asking for an investigation.  Most did not say he was guilty.  Instead most said the allegations are enough to justify an investigation.

Indeed.

https://www.apnews.com/b83b844f551b4fd999c0013784abe51d

But he's a democrat so all democrats must be hypocrites for...some reason.

[BengalHawk62]

(12-11-2018, 03:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.

https://www.apnews.com/b83b844f551b4fd999c0013784abe51d

But he's a democrat so all democrats must be hypocrites for...because they are not republicans.

Fixed it for ya.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2018, 03:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.

https://www.apnews.com/b83b844f551b4fd999c0013784abe51d

But he's a democrat so all democrats must be hypocrites for...some reason.

Your link is about the Dems clearing a fellow Dem, not exactly an exoneration.  Also from your link, a quote from the victim;

Quote:“This is #whyididnttell and I said it from the beginning, I didn’t expect to be heard, believed or validated,” Monahan tweeted. She said she shared plenty of evidence, including medical records and a summary from her therapist as well as text messages between her and Ellison.

Iirc she did provide medical documentation, and other evidence, of her injuries and the fact that they were incurred via domestic violence.  But the Democratic party cleared him and that's good enough for you.  Much like the Clinton accusers you don't believe women who are victimized by the party of your preference. 

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your link is about the Dems clearing a fellow Dem, not exactly an exoneration.  Also from your link, a quote from the victim;



Iirc she did provide medical documentation, and other evidence, of her injuries and the fact that they were incurred via domestic violence.  But the Democratic party cleared him and that's good enough for you.  Much like the Clinton accusers you don't believe women who are victimized by the party of your preference. 

My link was a story about her refusal to cooperate, even in private, and her other two witnesses refusing to meet with anyone.

Compared to the Kavanaugh affair where people were asking to be talked to I don't see the similarities.

However you hyperbole is noted as I didn't say who *I* believed...you projected that one.

Hopefully that guy who calls out all the hyperbole around here will come around and say something. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 03:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is how it happened.  There was an investigation and the alleged victim refused to cooperate.  The whole story was apparently BS.

This will come as a shock to some people who only get their news from one side, but very few liberals say we should believe a victim when there is no evidence to back up the claim.  Most liberals who were speaking up in support of Dr. Ford were just asking for an investigation.  Most did not say he was guilty.  Instead most said the allegations are enough to justify an investigation.

Yeah, that comes as a huge shock to me. I'll stop short of calling it an outright lie; but everyone has to look at themselves in the mirror.

#Ibelieveher

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2018, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, that comes as a huge shock to me. I'll stop short of calling it an outright lie; but everyone has to look at themselves in the mirror.

#Ibelieveher

Like I said.  I knew it would come as a shock to people who get most of their news from one source.

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 06:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Like I said.  I knew it would come as a shock to people who get most of their news from one source.

Well admittedly I get a lot of it from here.

#Ibeleiveher

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2018, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Iirc she did provide medical documentation, and other evidence, of her injuries and the fact that they were incurred via domestic violence.  But the Democratic party cleared him and that's good enough for you.  

No.  That is not enough for me at all.

The fact is that she claimed to have video and she didn't.  That proves she is a liar.

Also the DA's office has refused to investigate any crime even though this was only supposed to have occurred 2 years ago.

She has no provided any proof of domestic violence other than her own claims.  If I remember there were some emails where he apologized, but it is not clear he was apologizing for any sort of assault.

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 06:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  That is not enough for me at all.

The fact is that she claimed to have video and she didn't.  That proves she is a liar.

Also the DA's office has refused to investigate any crime even though this was only supposed to have occurred 2 years ago.

She has no provided any proof of domestic violence other than her own claims.  If I remember there were some emails where he apologized, but it is not clear he was apologizing for any sort of assault.

Ford claimed to have witnesses; however none of them supported her story. But that was burden enough for you amiright or is that just from 1 source?

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2018, 06:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ford claimed to have witnesses; however none of them supported her story. But that was burden enough for you amiright or is that just from 1 source?

You must be confused.  All I ever said was that the claims deserved to be investigated before Kavanaugh was confirmed.

Don't you remember the extensive arguments we had where you said we have to assume he is innocent and I said I refused to believe either side  unless/until there was an investigation?

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You must be confused.  All I ever said was that the claims deserved to be investigated before Kavanaugh was confirmed.

Don't you remember the extensive arguments we had where you said we have to assume he is innocent and I said I refused to believe either side  unless/until there was an investigation?

I do remember the discussions and this is why I was surprised by your assertion.

Seems I recall you stating you can believe her over him because this is not a court of law. But whatever. As I said we must all look at ourselves in the mirror

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2018, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do remember the discussions and this is why I was surprised by your assertion.

Seems I recall you stating you can believe her over him because this is not a court of law. But whatever. As I said we must all look at ourselves in the mirror

I said that without an investigation he was not entitled to a presumption of innocence.  I refused to pick sides until I had more information.  


And since I believe in fairness and treating both sides the same I have no trouble looking at myself in the mirror.  You were the one who said we had to take the accused's side and believe him without any further investigation.

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 06:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I said that without an investigation he was not entitled to a presumption of innocence.  I refused to pick sides until I had more information.  


And since I believe in fairness and treating both sides the same I have no trouble looking at myself in the mirror.  You were the one who said we had to take the accused's side and believe him without any further investigation.

No doubt. I remember you being a shinning beacon of neutrality throughout the ordeal.

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2018, 06:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt. I remember you being a shinning beacon of neutrality throughout the ordeal.

For once your memory is 100% correct.

And anyone who doubts bfine's memory can go back and look for themselves.  I was the one against taking sides before any sort of investigation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2018, 03:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: My link was a story about her refusal to cooperate, even in private, and her other two witnesses refusing to meet with anyone.

As well as her pointing out that she had provided evidence that backed up her claim.

Quote:Compared to the Kavanaugh affair where people were asking to be talked to I don't see the similarities.

Neither do I.  I didn't bring up Kavanaugh though, you just did.

Quote:However you hyperbole is noted as I didn't say who *I* believed...you projected that one.

Again, I didn't bring up Kavanaugh, so I'm wondering where you're getting the supposed hyperbole from.  I did bring up Clinton and your continued refusal to publicly state whether you believed the women who made accusation against him.  Is that hyperbole?

Quote:Hopefully that guy who calls out all the hyperbole around here will come around and say something. 

I'm sure he will, as soon as he finds some.  Maybe help him out and actually point some out in this thread?  I'm sure that guy won't hold his breath.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 06:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As well as her pointing out that she had provided evidence that backed up her claim.

Evidence of something happening to her.  The evidence that "backed up her claim" was the video she said she had and her two other witnesses.  None of which was provided during the investigation.

I'm assuming that you would want to see more than just a bruise or an injury before you found someone guilty.

(12-11-2018, 06:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Neither do I.  I didn't bring up Kavanaugh though, you just did.

Again, I didn't bring up Kavanaugh,

Oh!  So in your very first accusatory post when you mentioned Cruz and, well, let's just read what you wrote:

(12-11-2018, 01:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just wondering, as I recall Cruz being harassed by far left activists that state they believe survivors, how Keith Ellison, accused domestic abuser, was elected the AG of Minnesota.  Is it OK to beat women if you're a Democrat?  Is it OK to not believe survivors if their attacker was a Democrat (I'm looking at you Bill Clinton).  While obviously tongue in cheek the implications of this are rather disturbing.  Apparently even believing women has become a partisan exercise.  You shut the hell up Paula Jones!

First: "obviously tongue and cheek"     Great CYA there sir!

But anyway, when you brought up Cruz which "survivor" were you referring to?

I bet it was Dr. Ford who accused Kavanaugh...even if you "didn't bring him up".  

(12-11-2018, 06:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: so I'm wondering where you're getting the supposed hyperbole from.

I did bring up Clinton and your continued refusal to publicly state whether you believed the women who made accusation against him.  Is that hyperbole?

I'm sure he will, as soon as he finds some.  Maybe help him out and actually point some out in this thread?  I'm sure that guy won't hold his breath.

I put the hyperbole in bold in the statement I responded to.  I figured the hyperbole guy would be here to say something about it.  Maybe only Democrats use it in his view?

Or maybe it's just that you want to paint me as something with no proof so you just keep pounding a point until there is no point?  So you just keep bringing up Clinton?

I certainly didn't expect him to find that you made a mistake or used hyperbole...no sir.  That would be like saying you were wro....well...let's just say not 100% right.  


The point of the matter is you wanted to accuse "democrats" of not treating Ellison the same as...well...you didn't "bring up" Kavanaugh but instead mentioned others being harassed for their view on accusers.  And, when shown that no one said Kavanaugh was guilty but wanted an investigation and that Ellison had an investigation and the evidence wasn't there, you turned it into...Clinton?  I dunno.  You're all over the place here.

And I didn't vote for Ellison for AG of Minn. So maybe we have members from there you were specifically looking for answers from?

I'm sure you'll clearly explain yourself and how you were right and everyone leftists were wrong.  I'll wait patiently.