Because your single biggest key points, repeated time and again are that the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer and that Trump is a rapist and therefore the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
OK, so the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer. Should the accused be allowed any kind of representative (such as a faculty rep), and what would you do to ensure that representative is both competent and acting in the best interest of the accused? I asked 14 questions previously about policy and what it should look like that you entirely ignored.
the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
You can’t help yourself but invent things I didn’t say. Argue with what I said, not with what you wish I’d said.
What I said was that you’d have to be really, really, really, really, really gullible to believe that the Rapist in Chief, who uses expensive lawyers to silence his victims, is inviting lawyers into K12 exclusion meetings over rape for any other reason but to allow expensive lawyers to let rich rapists get away with it, just like him. Irrespective of who proposed it, it’s a terrible idea and you and I know full well it will discourage rape victims from even telling a teacher of their attack because they know they’ll have a horrendous experience.
I told you exactly what I think should happen, and as usual, you ignored it and made up your own version of what I said so you could argue with that instead.
Because your single biggest key points, repeated time and again are that the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer and that Trump is a rapist and therefore the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
OK, so the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer. Should the accused be allowed any kind of representative (such as a faculty rep), and what would you do to ensure that representative is both competent and acting in the best interest of the accused? I asked 14 questions previously about policy and what it should look like that you entirely ignored.
You can’t help yourself but invent things I didn’t say. Argue with what I said, not with what you wish I’d said.
What I said was that you’d have to be really, really, really, really, really gullible to believe that the Rapist in Chief, who uses expensive lawyers to silence his victims, is inviting lawyers into K12 exclusion meetings over rape for any other reason but to allow expensive lawyers to let rich rapists get away with it, just like him. Irrespective of who proposed it, it’s a terrible idea and you and I know full well it will discourage rape victims from even telling a teacher of their attack because they know they’ll have a horrendous experience.
I told you exactly what I think should happen, and as usual, you ignored it and made up your own version of what I said so you could argue with that instead.