Women’s March and the law of unintended consiquences

This was Tweeted by the notoriously anti-Semitic, racist, terrorist supporting Women’s March.  

The statement:

If you vote to put an alleged rapist on the court, if you argue that he has still earned his place in the halls of power after abusing women, you are a rape apologist.

Lets break this down shall we?

If you vote to put an alleged rapist on the court

Alleged rapist.  Alleged.  Not proven.  Not convicted.  Alleged.  The standard for the Women’s March is alleged.  Anybody can allege anything at any time.

if you argue that he has still earned his place in the halls of power after abusing women,

The abuse has not been proven.  The argument is that the allegations have not corroboration or evidence behind them.  The Women’s March has pivoted from “alleged” to “he did it” in the length of a comma.

you are a rape apologist.

Absolutely nobody is saying “it’s okay that he raped a girl, we should let him on the court anyway.”  It would be suicidal for the GOP to do that.  They are saying “we have no evidence or corroboration, so under our system of goverment, he has be benefit of the doubt at the presumption of innocence as the accused.”

The standard for the Women’s March is saying “hold on a minute, can we get some evidence that a man did was he is being accused of before we destroy his life” is now being a rape apologist.

They are now trying to shame every GOP senator on the Judiciary Committee this way, for example, Ted Cruz:

This is beyond unreasonable.

“If a woman accuses a man of something horrible, with no evidence or corroboration, we should believe her and destroy him.  Any man that wants evidence or corroboration of the accusation should also be destroyed for being a ‘rape apologist.'”

How is this message supposed to resonate with any woman with a husband, brother, or son who is not a totally radical SJW?

The lesson that I learned is never believe the woman.  She better bring a mountain of evidence and eye witnesses, and have no history of supporting Democrats.

I’m taking the “Boondocks, Trial of R Kelly” standard.

I don’t think I’m going be alone in this.

When a baseless allegation can be used to destroy, not just the person alleged, but anybody who doubts the allegation, that’s going to far and there will be push back.

Newton’s Third Law is usually summarized as “for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.”

This applies to politics as well.

For every hard push in one direction, there is an equal but opposite push in another.

Obama gave us Trump.  The rise of the SJW led to a resurgence of the White Supremacist.

The Women’s March is pushing hard Stalin.  What will the push back be?

 

 

6 Replies to “Women’s March and the law of unintended consiquences”

    1. Not an alleged rapist, an alleged groper. Keep in mind that, under the laws in place in 1982, groping was not a sexual crime. That law didn’t change until 1994. The term here is ex post facto.

      The only woman alleging rape specifically said that BK didn’t rape her, but she saw him in line with other men, waiting their turn to rape a woman. She very carefully avoided accusing him of rape.

  1. The leaders of this are trained by obozo or someone similar and funded by Soros. The plan is to destroy the country. Make it impossible to be anything but a socialist on pain of being attacked on the street or in a restaurant or in an elevator in the capital. Make unproveable accusations, treat the accused like dirt, Lynch them destroy their family make to too costly to even try

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.