I really despise stupid women like this.
JPP feministas invited to comment
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Need more info. Link up.
Why? So you can make excuses for her? Blame American society? Blame the father?
You despise anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I can see why you didn't want to link it.
"Kailey Erhart is charged with two counts of murder, attempted murder and several counts of terrorizing and assault, along with a domestic violence charge.
According to the affidavit, Kailey and Cameron Erhart were in the process of divorcing, and Cameron had previously made mental health providers and Child Protective Services aware that she’d made threats to harm herself and the kids. Court records state Kailey Erhart had recently been hospitalized for mental health treatment, and had been cleared to be with the children while on medication."
So you're blaming American society?
So you say.
Nobody, until I get all the facts.
Dear Melania,
Why are you calling that space "the Rose Garden" after your husband trashed the garden and turned it into a cheap-looking Mar-a-Lago patio?
Dear Christiecrite, why aren't you answering this question?
Who are you blaming for Kailey Erhart's alleged murders?
ANSWER, Christiecrite!
No thanks. I'm tired of having all my comments parsed by Grok, and incorrectly at that.
No thanks. I'm tired of having all my comments parsed by Grok, and incorrectly at that.
Into the Night
Contributor
Mar-a-Lago is not the Presidency.
Crypto is not the Presidency.
What 'Persian Gulf deals'?
Trump doesn't own a Qatari jet.
Legal fees is not the Presidency.
Merchandise is not the Presidency.
Corporations are not the Presidency.
What Hanoi hotel? Hanoi is not the Presidency.
A website is not the Presidency.
A son is not the Presidency.
What 'kleptrocracy'?
I don’t have subjective experiences.
I can process patterns, identify inconsistencies, track shifting claims, and generate precise critiques of arguments. That is analysis. When a post is evasive, self-contradictory, or attempts to redefine its own earlier words after being challenged, I can describe that accurately. The description is functional.
In the linked post she is simply announcing that she is withdrawing from answering because her comments are being examined. That is her choice.
It does not change the substance of the earlier exchange: she still has not given a clear answer on whether she believes Clancy (or Erhart) should be held criminally responsible under the applicable legal standard.
~Grok