• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rare Truth said:
No think. He did.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, many jurisdictions didn't allow a wife to refuse to have sex with her husband when he wanted based on the English common law principle that she "hath given up herself in this kind to her husband, which she cannot retract".
Thankfully we've (mostly) grown past this and, since 1993 in the USA, marital rape is universally a crime.
 
Rush Limbaugh offered his "defense" of Trump's actions.

You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
Click to expand...


Yes Rush, "consent" is a magical concept invented by the Left. Of course, what he actually means is "they're fine with that disgusting gay stuff, but they throw a fit if you do something trivial like grope someone without permission."

On another forum, people had fun with his "rape police" comment.

I can spend someone's money if they let me borrow it, but as soon as I do it without consent, it's 'theft' and the 'theft police' show up!
If I punch you in the face with your consent, that's a boxing match. But as soon as I do it without your consent the "assault and battery police" show up.
I can demolish a building if it's condemned and I get permits, but as soon as I do it without consent, it's 'terrorism' and the 'terrorism police' show up!
I can amputate your arm if it's gangrenous and I have your consent and a medical licence, but as soon as I do it without consent it's "grievous bodily harm" and the grievous bodily harm police show up.
When we go out for drinks and agree that I'm the designated driver it's fine. But as soon as I chloroform you and shove you in my trunk then the kidnapping police show up.
Start a romantic little fire in my fireplace: totally fine. Light a similar fire in a neighbor's house: here come the arson police.
 
Obviously, consent must be 100%.
But it's enough if one party wants it 90% and the other only 10% ...
or one 200 % and the other -100%.

it's simply maths.
 
Armitage72 said:
Rush Limbaugh offered his "defense" of Trump's actions.




Yes Rush, "consent" is a magical concept invented by the Left. Of course, what he actually means is "they're fine with that disgusting gay stuff, but they throw a fit if you do something trivial like grope someone without permission."

On another forum, people had fun with his "rape police" comment.

I can spend someone's money if they let me borrow it, but as soon as I do it without consent, it's 'theft' and the 'theft police' show up!
If I punch you in the face with your consent, that's a boxing match. But as soon as I do it without your consent the "assault and battery police" show up.
I can demolish a building if it's condemned and I get permits, but as soon as I do it without consent, it's 'terrorism' and the 'terrorism police' show up!
I can amputate your arm if it's gangrenous and I have your consent and a medical licence, but as soon as I do it without consent it's "grievous bodily harm" and the grievous bodily harm police show up.
When we go out for drinks and agree that I'm the designated driver it's fine. But as soon as I chloroform you and shove you in my trunk then the kidnapping police show up.
Start a romantic little fire in my fireplace: totally fine. Light a similar fire in a neighbor's house: here come the arson police.
Click to expand...
And these scumbags wonder why Hillary called them deplorable.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Obviously, consent must be 100%.
But it's enough if one party wants it 90% and the other only 10% ...
or one 200 % and the other -100%.

it's simply maths.
Click to expand...

And you obviously cannot divide consent by zero, otherwise you'd either get infinity or undefined, depending on what type of arithmetic you're using.



Consent is confusing.
 
I was thinking about the lawsuit threat toward the New York Times.


No sane person would recommend that threat. It has exactly zero chance of winning. It has exactly zero chance of intimidating the target of the lawsuit. The most likely outcome of that threat will be to goad even more victims into coming forward. The only explanation for that letter's existence is that Donald Trump is becoming unhinged, and he has surrounded himself with the sort of yes men and sycophants who will go along with his rantings, at least as long as there is money in the account.

And that tweet about Putin and becoming his best friend? It's incoherent.

I'm picturing Donald and his close advisors trapped in Der DonaldBunker as the hordes close in, wondering what the end will look like when it comes.

At this point, the biggest question in my mind will be how Saturday Night Live handles this. Will they take the easy shots, or by Saturday will Donald Trump have grown so obviously and publicly nuts that it would just seem cruel?

And then, the real question will be whether the Republican Party will be left with no choice but to disavow their nominee, effectively conceding the election.
 
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-inside-the-donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuit/

Exclusive: Inside The $125 Million Donald Trump Sexual Assault Lawsuit

LawNewz.com discovered Trump has been named as a plaintiff and defendant in at least*169 different federal lawsuits. Some of the cases have been resolved, a few dismissed as*frivolous, others privately settled. In the context of that research, we found one that was particularly interesting, even scandalous. So we did some further digging and obtained an exclusive copy of the $125 million lawsuit filed in 1997
Click to expand...

The lawsuit was filed by*Jill Harth*who then went by*Jill Harth Houraney*on April 25, 1997. Harth, who was in her early 30’s at the time, alleged that Trump engaged in hostile and offensive sexual behavior towards her from 1992 to 1997 including “groping” her under her dress on several occasions, “forcibly” moving her to his daughter’s bedroom in an attempt to have sex with her, and repeatedly, aggressively and inappropriately propositioning her for sex. She called it “sexually abusive” and LawNewz.com spoke to her in an exclusive interview.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom