Posted on 02/11/2025 8:20:12 AM PST by bitt
p
just catching this
I fkng hate men who do this shit!
an alternative hypothesis might that occurs to me: this is a preemptive strike against release of tapes
Direct link to the speech:
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1lPKqMrQQaeKb
https://nypost.com/2023/07/27/nancy-mace-makes-prayer-breakfast-crowd-uncomfortable-with-sex-talk/
I believe we should have a torture penalty, which should amp up well beyond what perpetrators did to their victims.
I also have no issues with removal of limbs and such. An eye for an eye is a great start.
Such penalties are humane, in my mind, because they were already approved to do to an innocent by the perps.
If deemed wholesome for a victim, they are most definitely fine for the perp!
So she's all the more enthused, especially since this new allegation, though about her ex fiancé, contains photos up skirts (which can be done from a nearby restroom stall).
Anyone who is against Nancy is for rape.
Sounds horrible, but has zero relevance to her job as a Congressman.
She’s using her absolute inability to be sued for slander when speaking as a Congressman on the floor to tar her ex, probably justifiably, but it’s not the People’s business .
It’s not the people’s business to bring to light evil and a corrupt attorney general.
Preemptive strike? Let’s hope she’s clean in all of this.
I sympathize with her, but what does this have to do with the business of Congress? Why is she doing this on the House floor?
It is a very unusual place and time to lash out at folks you allege have assaulted you. Go to the police, the DA, the US Attorney, but speaking on the floor of the House? I don’t know what this is, but let’s hope it’s not a breakdown. With the margin in the House as thin as it is, I have been worrying about the possible passing of elderly GOP congressman or congresswoman. But this? I dunno... it’s very odd.
Sounds more like she doesn’t like her ex, and with good reason.
Reminds me of the time I was on a divorce court jury between a county judge husband and a district prosecutor wife.
She chose to be with the guy.
Women need to choose carefully.
She said she found videos and took them to the police. The police allegedly ignored her. If she had videos, why would they do that?
Does she have the videos now as proof?
Why is she saying this on the floor of Congress? Because she’s free to lie there without repercussions? She could have gone to next-level LEOs, or the press. Why Congress?
I feel hinky about this.
I agree, but for a guy that was seemingly generally respected, how can you know all the background stuff until some time passes?
No woman deserves being drugged and/or raped and/or filmed because she chose “wrong.”
You can say a relationship conflict is blameworthy, but not illegal activities done against their will.
I am a bit surprised at how you phrased your comment.
“It is a very unusual place and time to lash out”
***********
Indeed it is. Something doesn’t seem right. Its as if she doth protest too much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.