Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

[Grizzly Bear]

Trump thinks he has permission. He doesn't. But it's not criminal.

Snipped for brevity mainly. In politics people dont see nuances. People see words... they see headlines. And that skews their views to the point that such nuances cant be discussed with out getting skewered for providing a reasoning or context. It doesnt even matter that you dont legitimize or approve of the behavior...

The responses to such efforts represent an excellent case study of how rare reasoned debate is in politics at its finest

 

[Andy_Ross]

Great hair.

Yes but who's?

 

[Armitage72]

I watched Rush saying this last night on a YouTube clip. I busted out laughing and agreeing with the blowhard. (That doesn't happen very often) Yes, Rush, that is the point. I don't care about your sexual acts as long as they are consensual. Whatever floats your boat as long as everyone is safe and it is consensual. As long as you're not taking advantage of anyone who can't legitimately give their consent, like a minor or the incapacitated or the mentally deficient.

This is the likely reason why homosexual sex often gets equated with pedophilia and bestiality by some people, and the rape of a spouse is believed to be impossible - a fundamental failure to understand the concept of consent. Unlike adults, animals and children cannot consent, and saying "I do" does not grant irrevocable consent in perpetuity.

 

[Crossbow]

Wanna wager?

Sure do!

I will wager you $10.00 that the Democrats sweep the 2016 election. My bet is that the Democrats will take the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

I hope that is acceptable.

 

[pgwenthold]

From that link:
One does have to wonder, but some women are not as assertive as others. I would have very loudly said, "get your bloody hands off me, what's wrong with you," and I would have insisted the stewardess (at the time they were all stewardesses) do something.

But I know a lot of mousy women who would have been too shy to do that and might have quietly just asked to change seats without saying why.

I saw that clip, and wasn't sure what Pierson was arguing about what planes weren't available then. I have heard assertions that "first class seats didn't have adjustable arm rests" back then.

All I do know is that there was a famous crash of a DC-10 at OHare, when the engine fell off, and that happened when I was in grade school - yep, 1979, it appears.

So there were DC 10s in 1980, at the least. Did they really not have adjustable armrests in first class?

The 747 has been around since the late 60s.

 

[Stacko]

Trump on fire early: Clinton "meets in secret with int'l banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty."​

Why is he still dog whistling the anti-Semitism? He's gone to full bullhorn for the rest of his racism and bigotry.

 

[iknownothing]

Snipped for brevity mainly. In politics people dont see nuances. People see words... they see headlines. And that skews their views to the point that such nuances cant be discussed with out getting skewered for providing a reasoning or context. It doesnt even matter that you dont legitimize or approve of the behavior...

The responses to such efforts represent an excellent case study of how rare reasoned debate is in politics at its finest

Sometimes nuance is called for. And sometimes you have a very clear line between right and wrong.

Do you think Trump's fans would see nuance in the case of an illegal immigrant groping women? I think they would call it what it is, a crime. Just because Trump thinks he's above the law as it applies to others, doesn't make it so. His delusion that all women want him is not a defense.

 

[Belz...]

This is the likely reason why homosexual sex often gets equated with pedophilia and bestiality by some people, and the rape of a spouse is believed to be impossible - a fundamental failure to understand the concept of consent. Unlike adults, animals and children cannot consent, and saying "I do" does not grant irrevocable consent in perpetuity.

An interesting thought. It'd be a moral philosphy based on a type of act that is acceptable, instead of based on the idea of harmful acts vs innocuous ones. It would be strange if true, however, given the purported focus on individual rights and freedoms that the conservatives have.

 

[jimbob]

I don't think it's OK, but we've been down the road of "consent" already.

Why do you think it's OK to conflate "bad behavior," "deplorable", and "sexual assault"? Can you describe where the lines ought to be? (Rhetorical, no need to answer.)

The problem here is one of subjective being foisted off as objective. We think the standards in our own heads are (and should be) obvious to everyone who is moral and that they should share our suppositions. But plainly standards of behavior have changed over the many decades Trump has been alive.

We seem happy enough to say that a pat on the ass is sexual harassment now, and always has been. We feel better, I suppose, dismissing previous cultural mores as less enlightened and harmful to women. Our children will no doubt do the same with things we do just as casually now. That's the root hypocrisy, a failure to see this in a relative light. A failure to accept the role of norms and an insistence on making one's subjective evaluation objective in order to impose it on others.

Trump thinks he has permission. He doesn't. But it's not criminal.

Trump was talking about grabbing what is sometimes called a fanny in the UK, not what is called a fanny in the US.

Elsewhere, someone posted that he hadn't really appreciated how it felt to be "the meat" until he (straight but with a gay brother) visited a gay bar and was groped by a fat man with halitosis.

 

[iknownothing]

This is the likely reason why homosexual sex often gets equated with pedophilia and bestiality by some people, and the rape of a spouse is believed to be impossible - a fundamental failure to understand the concept of consent. Unlike adults, animals and children cannot consent, and saying "I do" does not grant irrevocable consent in perpetuity.

There was a blog post several years ago at Patheos about this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejo...le-of-two-boxes-contrastin-sexual-ethics.html

 

[jimbob]

Sure do!

I will wager you $10.00 that the Democrats sweep the 2016 election. My bet is that the Democrats will take the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

I hope that is acceptable.

it's not clear cut.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...crats-are-losing-ground/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

 

[Stacko]

We cut now to Hillary Clinton's reaction to Donald's latest campaign tactics.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by marplots
Trump thinks he has permission. He doesn't. But it's not criminal.

Snipped for brevity mainly. In politics people dont see nuances. People see words... they see headlines. And that skews their views to the point that such nuances cant be discussed with out getting skewered for providing a reasoning or context. It doesnt even matter that you dont legitimize or approve of the behavior...

The responses to such efforts represent an excellent case study of how rare reasoned debate is in politics at its finest

While I agree with your remark that nuances often get lost in debates. This is a case where nuance is more of an attempt to obscure an issue than it is to bring clarity. Marplot is simply wrong. It doesn't matter if Donald Trump thought he had permission if it was clear to a jury that he did not. Just as if you take my car just because I left it unlocked and the keys in the ignition.

Sadly, many men still don't get it. My older brother use to tell me that "no means maybe and everything else meant yes". My older brother was wrong as is Trump as is the Mad Men attitude that at one time maybe more the norm.

 

[I Am The Scum]

New South Wales is not Wales

All I'm saying is, if they're so tough, why do the Japanese keep harpooning them?

 

[halleyscomet]

I watched Rush saying this last night on a YouTube clip. I busted out laughing and agreeing with the blowhard. (That doesn't happen very often) Yes, Rush, that is the point. I don't care about your sexual acts as long as they are consensual. Whatever floats your boat as long as everyone is safe and it is consensual. As long as you're not taking advantage of anyone who can't legitimately give their consent, like a minor or the incapacitated or the mentally deficient.

I find it very disturbing that he finds the concept of consent so laughable and worthy of mocking. I wonder under what circumstances he would consider "consent" to be purely optional. I doubt he considers marital rape an actual crime.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No offense, but you don't get it. Unwanted sexual touching is a sex crime. It is a Felony everywhere I have checked. In most State statutes it comes under the heading of "sexual assault".

In Arizona. It's a violation of 13-404
A. A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person who is fifteen or more years of age without consent of that person or with any person who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the female breast.
C. Sexual abuse is a class 5 felony unless the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case sexual abuse is a class 3 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

In New York State it's also called sexual abuse and varies from being a class b Misdemeanor to a class D Felony. Article 130

In Florida, it is called Sexual Battery.
In Washington State it's Sexual Abuse RCW 74.34.020 Can be a misdemeanor or a Felony.

What is odd about all of this is the framing of non-consensual advances as manly or locker room banter.

Men talk about sex, men brag about sex, men brag about sex with people they could never have sex with, but they brag about the women wanting to have sex, not about forcing the women to have sex.

I don't know of any man who would admit to other men that they have to force themselves on women and the women just have to take it. Seriously, that is disturbed.

 

[Bob001]

What is odd about all of this is the framing of non-consensual advances as manly or locker room banter.

Men talk about sex, men brag about sex, men brag about sex with people they could never have sex with, but they brag about the women wanting to have sex, not about forcing the women to have sex.

I don't know of any man who would admit to other men that they have to force themselves on women and the women just have to take it. Seriously, that is disturbed.

That's the weirdest part of all this. Even rapists will claim "She really wanted it, I could tell." But Trump literally doesn't think he's doing anything wrong when he accosts women against their will. It's as if he said "Whenever I need cash, I just knock over a liquor store. You can do that when you're a star."

 

[acbytesla]

I saw that clip, and wasn't sure what Pierson was arguing about what planes weren't available then. I have heard assertions that "first class seats didn't have adjustable arm rests" back then.

All I do know is that there was a famous crash of a DC-10 at OHare, when the engine fell off, and that happened when I was in grade school - yep, 1979, it appears.

So there were DC 10s in 1980, at the least. Did they really not have adjustable armrests in first class?

The 747 has been around since the late 60s.

She's an IDIOT. I live in Seattle Boeing's home. The 747 was introduced in 1970. Trump's own jet the 757 went into service in 1981. And none of that really matters as each airline chooses how they fit out their own planes. Swing up armrests are not something that was introduced in the 80s, they have been around as early as the mid 60s. They have been available on DC 9s, DC 10s L1011 , MD80s 707s, 727s, 737s, 747s 757s, etc. They are in first class as well coach. I was dying laughing when she said that. I have to wonder whether she thought up that absurdity or did someone else come up with it? Desperate.

 

[seayakin]

What is odd about all of this is the framing of non-consensual advances as manly or locker room banter.

Men talk about sex, men brag about sex, men brag about sex with people they could never have sex with, but they brag about the women wanting to have sex, not about forcing the women to have sex.

I don't know of any man who would admit to other men that they have to force themselves on women and the women just have to take it. Seriously, that is disturbed.

I don't know if its odd. I think its Trump and his people making a feeble attempt at defending the statements. There are lots of athletes and others who have taken offense of the implication that this kind of talk regularly happens in a lock room. My own personal experience supports this. I heard lots of bragging about ones sexual activities but never anyone indicated that they grabbed women in any way. Every story was portrayed as consensual.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't know if its odd. I think its Trump and his people making a feeble attempt at defending the statements. There are lots of athletes and others who have taken offense of the implication that this kind of talk regularly happens in a lock room. My own personal experience supports this. I heard lots of bragging about ones sexual activities but never anyone indicated that they grabbed women in any way. Every story was portrayed as consensual.

Exactly.
Cheap Trick got the heart of it with the line: I want you to want me. Not I want you to stay still for a minute.