Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

[johnny karate]

"They let you do it."

Did I get the quote right? I'm too lazy to look it up again.

"They let you do it" is not synonymous with "I was given consent".

 

[Darat]

No. That would not be the same. But what does that have to do with Trump? Are you saying being a rich celebrity is like holding a knife to someone's throat?

Coercion can take many forms, some are not as obvious as a knife at your throat.

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37639839

Trump 'groped woman like an octopus'

I'm trying not to picture a woman like an octopus.

 

[Darat]

Look, you don't even have to buy the idea that some women would be attracted to Trump because he's a rich celebrity. All you have to accept is that Trump thinks this is true. That's all that's needed to explain the remarks.

I don't think anyone has claimed that no one would be attracted to Trump because of his fame and apparent wealth. But that is not what we are talking about.

 

[pgwenthold]

"They let you do it" is not synonymous with "I was given consent".

No, "they let you do it" in this case means, "you get away with it."

 

[phiwum]

Most normal adults might pass a comment such as "She'll grow up to be a stunner" on a 10 year old but in Trump's world everything is orientated around Trump. In his mind I am sure that he thought he was paying her a compliment, what greater compliment could there be for a 10 year old than to know that when they grow up Trump will consider them attractive enough to "date"?

I don't know. This appears to me to be a very off-color bit of self-mocking humor. It's less of a big deal than I expected.

You're absolutely right that there's something about Trump that makes him surprisingly incapable to predict how others will react, and that's not a good trait for a politician. But I don't see this little quip as a significant clue that he's a pedophile.

Obviously, there are many, many reasons to think Trump is a horrible candidate. Surely no one should read these comments as supportive of the worst major party candidate in modern times, if not ever.

 

[Darat]

There ought to be some way for the rich and powerful to tell the difference between consent and coercion, or maybe there isn't?

I agree that for Trump it is probably very difficult for him to consider that a woman may object to being touched and kissed but all it would have taken is a quick "Can I kiss you?" or "Can I touch your breasts?"

 

[iknownothing]

Look, you don't even have to buy the idea that some women would be attracted to Trump because he's a rich celebrity. All you have to accept is that Trump thinks this is true. That's all that's needed to explain the remarks.

He may be deluded enough to think that all those women wanted him to grope them. But that doesn't actually give him the right to act on that assumption without their consent.

If an illegal immigrant thinks that the woman sitting next to him on the bus wants to be groped, it wouldn't be a defense. He still wouldn't be okay to just grab first and ask second. Laws regarding this are not actually different just because a guy is rich and famous (although it certainly makes it a lot more daunting for the woman to complain).

 

[marplots]

And if the remarks were all we had to determine Trump's behavior, then you'd have a point.

But we also numerous claims of Trump sexually assaulting women. Some describing exactly the kind of behavior to which Trump himself admitted.

I don't want to get dragged into defending Trump as a person. There is much damaged about him and much more to detest. I only got into this regarding the "locker room" talk bit.

But since the subject has broadened out, let's say he is guilty of everything he's been accused of in the sexual assault/harassment area. Does this mean he's unqualified to be president? And if so, why?

 

[Darat]

I don't know. This appears to me to be a very off-color bit of self-mocking humor. It's less of a big deal than I expected.

Problem with that proposition is that there isn't any other examples I can think of in which he has shown the self-awareness that is required to mock yourself.

You're absolutely right that there's something about Trump that makes him surprisingly incapable to predict how others will react, and that's not a good trait for a politician. But I don't see this little quip as a significant clue that he's a pedophile.

I didn't think it indicated he was a pedophile, I thought it just showed how self centred he is and how he views people.

Obviously, there are many, many reasons to think Trump is a horrible candidate. Surely no one should read these comments as supportive of the worst major party candidate in modern times, if not ever.

I don't think you do, nor do I think marspot is actually supporting Trump, it's a difference of opinion.

 

[pgwenthold]

You're absolutely right that there's something about Trump that makes him surprisingly incapable to predict how others will react, and that's not a good trait for a politician. But I don't see this little quip as a significant clue that he's a pedophile.

I agree. It doesn't make him a pedophile.

It does lend to the pile of evidence that he is a creep. That he's already talking about going after a 20 yo (he was something like 49 at the time, so would be about 60 in 10 years) is pretty disturbing. "When I'm 60, I'm going to be scoping out a 20 yo girlfriend."

Just, no.

Maybe it hits home for me because I am that 49 yo (almost), and I spend my time interacting with 20 yos. And no, I don't view them as potential conquests, and if any of my friends did something like that, I would also consider them to be a creep.

 

[uke2se]

Look, you don't even have to buy the idea that some women would be attracted to Trump because he's a rich celebrity. All you have to accept is that Trump thinks this is true. That's all that's needed to explain the remarks.

Don't you think that's a problem?

 

[Darat]

I don't want to get dragged into defending Trump as a person. There is much damaged about him and much more to detest. I only got into this regarding the "locker room" talk bit.

But since the subject has broadened out, let's say he is guilty of everything he's been accused of in the sexual assault/harassment area. Does this mean he's unqualified to be president? And if so, why?

For me it would mean that as I think it shows a personality that is unfit - in terms of being able to interact with people - to govern.

 

[uke2se]

But since the subject has broadened out, let's say he is guilty of everything he's been accused of in the sexual assault/harassment area. Does this mean he's unqualified to be president? And if so, why?

Yes, on top of all the other reasons for why he is unqualified to be president.

Somebody who sees half the population in terms of "doable" and "uglo" isn't fit for office.

Somebody who uses his position of power to coerce sexual favors from people isn't fit to lead.

Furthermore, what he did was illegal. He should be tried in a court of law. I very much doubt you guys allow felons to be president.

 

[Belz...]

all it would have taken is a quick "Can I kiss you?" or "Can I touch your breasts?"

Yeah but asking for permission to take what you want is weak and unmanly.

 

[marplots]

Don't you think that's a problem?

Not for a man of his generation. He's old enough to be playing the game where the male is the pursuer and the female the pursued. It's a 1950's model, no longer valid, and he's an idiot for not changing with the times. Perhaps his money shields him from the new realities.

Overall, I get the impression of someone who buys false stereotypes and is extremely shallow when it comes to personal relationships. Which I already knew. He makes these missteps constantly.

Is it a problem? It wasn't until he stepped into the public arena and all the examination that entails. His money and power do not shield him in this venue. So it's most definitely a problem now, and he'll lose the election because of it.

 

[acbytesla]

This is correct, but only if they are all evidence of the same thing. One shouldn't take evidence of overstepping boundaries as evidence of sexual assault. I can very well imagine someone who is flirtatious, socially awkward and takes advantage of his social status and not deduce a sexual assault.

Is it your contention that rapists brag about their crimes to relative strangers? If that's so, then your point stands. If it isn't, then the lines of evidence do not converge on a single diagnosis.

It's pointless anyhow. We don't charge/convict people on what they say but what they do. The alleged victims are coming forward to establish just that. Trump's locker room talk doesn't help or hurt the factual case against him that touch sexual assault directly. If this weren't so, we'd be bringing young Billy up on charges too.

When I first met my future wife, she was attending a Christian school. They had the 6" rule: people of opposite sex couldn't be closer than 6" to prevent any possibility of physical - and assumed immoral - contact. At the time I thought this a very strict rule, very puritanical. I imagined it to be a fringe belief. But times change and now we are sliding back toward less permissiveness and I expect such a rule would find adherents. "Inappropriate" is now "assault." So be it.

Frankly, I'd be happy to see hugs disappear.

You're being an apologist. Not for a 15 year old teenager with too many hormones and potentially a misunderstanding of what is appropriate behavior in the 50s or 60s. No, this was for a 45 to 70 year old man who knows what proper decorum is, but ignores it because he feels entitled. This was the 80s to today so there is no excuse of ignorance, not that it would matter as that is not an valid legal excuse.

It's sexual assault. It's a FELONY pretty much in every state in the country.

 

[phiwum]

Which rather concedes that Trump did, in fact, force his wife to have sex against her will.

No, it doesn't.

If I believed that a husband cannot rape his wife[1], then that's the first defense I would take. We needn't even argue over the facts of the matter if, by definition, a husband cannot rape his wife.

To take this defense concedes nothing at all. It is easier to argue on analytical grounds than on empirical grounds.

[1] Or if I were a lawyer and thought that I could convince others that this is the case, whether or not I agreed with it.

 

[uke2se]

Not for a man of his generation. He's old enough to be playing the game where the male is the pursuer and the female the pursued. It's a 1950's model, no longer valid, and he's an idiot for not changing with the times. Perhaps his money shields him from the new realities.

Overall, I get the impression of someone who buys false stereotypes and is extremely shallow when it comes to personal relationships. Which I already knew. He makes these missteps constantly.

Is it a problem? It wasn't until he stepped into the public arena and all the examination that entails. His money and power do not shield him in this venue. So it's most definitely a problem now, and he'll lose the election because of it.

He'd have lost the election anyway.

The reason it's a problem is that what he described is illegal.

 

[halleyscomet]

You don't need a knife.

In my experience men are often getting convicted of sexual abuse for unwanted touching when all the girl did was to say "no". Sometimes not even that.

The basic point of consent is that you shouldn't assume that the object of your attention will welcome your hands upon him/her. In the case of a situation of dependency it's even more important to get proper consent.

Trump doesn't care about that. Women are there to be ogled and touched for his pleasure.

I've always preferred the phrase, "Enthusiastic, ongoing consent." I'm used to my partners calling out "Yes! Yes! Yes!" as opposed to Trump's apparent preference for terrified, frozen lack of active resistance. Trump needs to learn that shaking in terror is NOT typically a pre-orgasmic response. It's so rare that it's newsworthy when it DOES happen: