jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (140 posts)

Sex, Lies, & Politics

  1. RJ Schwartz profile image93
    RJ Schwartzposted 7 weeks ago

    The Democrats, desperate in their attempts to keep Hillary viable in the eyes of Americans, are trying to make hay out of an old recording of Donald Trump.  The entire Party is "condemning" Trumps words.  Every mainstream liberal media talking head, Michelle O, Barry O, Joey B, and the gang are all shouting "faux outrage" that a man might actually say vulgar things.  Maybe a safe space moment is in order here.  This is the weakest attempt yet at trying to slander Mr. Trump.  Perhaps the crowds shouting "Bill Clinton is a rapist" at her events is finally getting to the Clinton camp. Now a parade of so-called victims are coming forward now that Trump has paraded actual victims of Bill's rapes in front of the world.  If these women were victims of Trump, then why didn't they take him to court when these so-called gropes happened?  Maybe because they make better headlines than court cases?

    America is being systematically dismantled by Democrats who are selling it off to the highest foreign donor but all the media talks about is sex.  No wonder people just don't trust them to report the actual news anymore.

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Michelle Obama Takes on Trump: 'Enough Is Enough'

      Fact Checking Donald Trump's Defiant Speech

      Amid Fresh Allegations, the Trump Ship Starts to Sink

      Do New Assault Allegations Spell the End for Donald Trump

      Miss USA Contestant Details Unwanted Encounters With Trump

      Arianne Zucker Reveals Why Trump's Lewd Comments Didn't Shock Her V

      Trump's Campaign Is 'Pulling Out of Virginia

      http://www.nbcnews.com/


      These are the top stories / articles ahh heck msm propaganda campaign.

      No top stories on the cherubs from arkansas.

    2. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Let me fix this for you.

      ". . . an old recording of Donald Trump". 
      ". . . an old recording of Donald Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women".

      "The entire Party is "condemning" Trumps words."
      "The entire Party and anyone with a shred of decency, including many Republicans are condemning Trump's words" 

      "Every mainstream liberal media talking head, Michelle O, Barry O, Joey B, . . . "
      "Every mainstream liberal media talking head, Michelle O, Barry O, Joey B, and conservatives like:

      Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk
      South Dakota Sen. John Thune
      Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse
      Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo
      Utah Sen. Mike Lee
      Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman
      Utah Rep. Mia Love
      Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman
      Nevada Rep. Joe Heck
      Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake
      Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock
      Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan
      Maine Sen. Susan Collins,
      Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner
      Alabama Rep. Martha Roby
      Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne
      New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett
      Missouri Rep. Ann Wagner
      Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis
      Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer
      South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard
      Utah Rep. Chris Stewar
      Former GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina
      Nebraska Rep. Jeff Fortenbury
      Michigan Rep. Fred Upton
      Texas Rep. Will Hurd
      Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam
      Frmr Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
      Arizona Senator John McCain
      New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte
      West Virginia Sen. Shelly Moore Capito
      Ohio Sen. Rob Portman
      Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski
      Ohio Gov. John Kasich
      Utah Gov. Gary Herbert
      Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley
      Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval
      Nevada Rep. Crescent Hardy
      California Rep. Steve Knight
      Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz
      Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent
      Florida Rep. Tom Rooney
      California Rep. David G. Valadao
      Minnesota Rep. Erik Paulsen
      Frmr Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty
      Michigan Rep. Justin Amash
      New Jersey Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno . . .
      "

      ". . . that a man might actually say vulgar things".
      ". . . that a man might actually brag about sexually assaulting women". 

      "This is the weakest attempt yet at trying to slander Mr. Trump". 
      "This is a recording of Mr. Trump that reproduces his exact words as spoken by him".

      "Now a parade of so-called victims are coming forward . . . "
      "Now a number of women making allegations of sexual assault against Donald Trump are coming forward. . . "

      ". . . now that Trump has paraded actual victims of Bill's rapes in front of the world"
      ". . . now that Trump has paraded women who made allegations of rape against Bill Clinton in front of the world."

      "If these women were victims of Trump, then why didn't they take him to court when these so-called gropes happened?  Maybe because they make better headlines than court cases?"
      ". . . Maybe because they knew they would be demeaned and denigrated as they are being now, so chose not to put themselves through that trauma in addition to the trauma that may have already been inflicted on them by Donald Trump?"

      "America is being systematically dismantled by Democrats who are selling it off to the highest foreign donor but all the media talks about is sex.  No wonder people just don't trust them to report the actual news anymore".
      "The media is changing in ways that I don't understand, and that frightens me, so I'll assume the change is all bad. I wish it was the 50s again."

      "The country is changing in ways that I don't understand, and that frightens me, so I'll assume the change is all bad. All the media is talking about is a presidential candidate who brags about committing sexual assault. I want them to stop. Please stop!"

      You're welcome.

      1. Aime F profile image84
        Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        Damn.  Nicely done.

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        What I find interesting is that we had oodles and oodles of evidence of Bill's philandering, his sexually predatory actions and his deviant leanings while he was president. That appeared to be okay with all the democrats I spoke to and heard speak; and any disgust displayed was written off as just another part of that vast right wing conspiracy.

        Can we all say 'double standard' in unison????

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          So it was wrong for Bill Clinton but it's OK for trump? Can we all say 'double standard' in unison????

          And can we all say 'two wrongs don't make a right' in unison?

          And can we all say 'Bill Clinton is not running for president' in unison?

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

            You missed the point. I'm not surprised.

            I didn't like Bill's attitude toward women. I didn't think it was impeachment worthy. Most of the country appeared to agree that it had nothing to do with his ability to perform the functions of his office.

            But, Trump? Well, there's a double standard if I ever saw one.

            If you can't present a valid reason why one was fine, another not, then you should quietly enjoy your hypocrisy. Don't expect others to not notice it.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

              Such allegations are never "fine".

              The difference here is between someone being accused of sexual assault, and someone admitting that they commit sexual assault, as Trump has. That's a very big difference. Give me a valid reason why it's ok for someone who admits committing sexual assault to be president.

              1. 79
                Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                Enlighten me.  Tell me exactly how Trump admitted to committing sexual assault?

      3. Valeant profile image90
        Valeantposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        Spot on from Don W.   Fifty point to Gryffindor.

    3. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Wait, so Trump's victims are "so-called" and Clinton's are "actual"?  Why?  They're all accusations and should be treated with the same seriousness.

      PS. Juanita Broaddrick waited 20 years to make her accusations against Clinton.  So by your logic of "they would have come forward sooner if it was true," she must be lying as well.

      1. ahorseback profile image51
        ahorsebackposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        What , not surprisingly ,  you fail to see is the history of lies of the Clinton Media Machine , 30 years of  proven lies ,   and now a couple of weeks before she possibly loses  , you fall for accusations that "just came to light' about Trump ...........?   

        Still believing those Clinton strategies huh .

        1. Aime F profile image84
          Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          So Trump literally says himself that he kisses women and grabs them without their consent.

          Women come forward and confirm that yes, what he said was true.

          But somehow it's all due to the Clintons?  Did they alter the tape where he said he did those things, too?

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

            Is the argument your guy is worse than my guy? They are both worse than each other. This election is a hoax.

            1. ahorseback profile image51
              ahorsebackposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

              The difference ; is  one worse than the other ?    Proven corruption   over  accusational  corruption !   I know how to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils,  many do not !

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

                Was holding your nose something that you just developed or did it evolve over over time. The so called fact that one is in your eyes is accused while the other is proven is what you are going on? You are tippy toeing through the horse shit that is out there on both of them choosing not to step in your preferred piles of it. My point is that for now you are willing to just vote, in your estimation, the lesser of two evils. Proven of otherwise they are both horrible and when you are left with the lesser of of the two you are still left with a lesser choice which you condone by participating on kicking this can down the road till the next plate of shitty candidates the two parties feed us.

            2. Aime F profile image84
              Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

              My argument is that you can't dismiss sexual assault accusations as political statements in one case and believe them in another case just because you don't like/like who they're made against.

              1. ahorseback profile image51
                ahorsebackposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

                Clinton sex assaults and Hilary support   -proven , Trump sex assaults accusations.

                1. Aime F profile image84
                  Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Proven?  By who?

                  And many of the Trump accusations are like two days old.  Do you always immediately assume women are lying about being sexually assaulted, or just when the accusations are against someone you support?

                  1. colorfulone profile image89
                    colorfuloneposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

                    1995 Clinton vs Jones,  Jones won over $800,000 in sexual harassment suit.

                    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZO.html

                    Lewinsky scandal:  Bill Clinton got impeached for lying and was disbarred from practicing law.   

                    http://www.breitbart.com/live/second-pr … peachment/

              2. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

                Two negatives cannot make a positive in either case. If we start choosing to "believe" rather than know we are just kidding ourselves.

            3. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

              Yes, who would be WORSE, once in office?
              Some (conservative types) say let Hillary get it, and balance her by electing lots of Republicans.
              ?

          2. 79
            Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            Trump implied that they welcomed his advances.

      2. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        A former NBC News journalist is calling on the network to release raw footage of a 1999 interview with Bill Clinton’s rape accuser, Juanita Broaddrick.

        http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/13/micha … roaddrick/

    4. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      Once more... lets consider the bigger picture:

      Supreme Court Nominations - anywhere from 2 to 4 in the next 4 years.

      Immigration - H1-B H2-B visas, open borders, Syrians, etc.

      Trade Agreements - TPP, TTiP, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA

      Second Amendment - The U.N. Small Arms Treaty

      Obamacare, Common Core, Liberty and Freedom

      That is what this election is about... and the two candidates are as far apart on these issues as ANY candidates have been in a quarter century.

      1. ahorseback profile image51
        ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        IN the right corner , Republicans  wanting conservative  choices , smaller  government , more protection for our liberties , balanced supreme court choices and decisions , nationally protectionist  trade deals ,  controlling immigration through existing law protections and use , more American   Jobs ,
        all of it business as usual .

        The left corner
        http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13238435.jpg

        You tell me !

      2. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        That's what the election should be about Ken. The problem is that when a major party fields a candidate who is sexist and racist, questions of policy become secondary. The primary question becomes, should someone who is sexist and racist be president?

        When a nominee is on record calling various women "dogs", and "pigs", talking about grabbing them by the crotch, making racist remarks etc., their policy positions become irrelevant, and people will simply ask whether that person is fit to be president, which is what's happening.

        So as much as I agree that public discourse during the election should be about TPP, TTiP, health care, immigration, and all the things you mentioned, it's not difficult to understand why that's not the case.

        As soon as Trump was nominated, any chance of a sensible discussion about issues was taken off the table. I have some sympathy for sensible conservatives who want to talk about the issues, but it's hard not to feel that the GOP brought this on themselves.

        For me, someone who is sexist and racist and brags about sexual assault should never be president. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a president must be a saint, we're all human, but I think it's reasonable to expect the president not to be sexist and racist. And if I had an adult daughter, I would not be comfortable leaving her in a room alone with Donald Trump. I can honestly say I have never thought that about any previous Republican presidential candidate.

        So at this stage whether I agree with Trump's position on health care or anything else is irrelevant. It comes down to the fact that someone who is sexist and racist should not be president.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          LOL  And of course that there is a thief, one that lied to congress under oath and put her convenience above the security needs of the country is not something that contributes anything at all to the problem. 

          Of course it doesn't - she is a liberal and allowed such indiscretions (although her husband paid a high price for lying to congress).

          1. mrpopo profile image88
            mrpopoposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            Obviously calling specific women "pigs" and bragging about sexual escapades is worse than threatening national security, wilderness.

            Reminds me of a South Park quote - horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Well, considering that those words came from a Republican, and that they are some really great mud to sling, yes Clinton's lack of concern for national security is less important.  Besides, the horrific offense of those words might hide Hillary's actual crimes.

          2. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            Do you want to compare the reliability of sources for your allegation that Hillary Clinton is a thief, to sources confirming Trump is sexist and racist?

            Clinton's server issue was a concern, but it still doesn't make it right for someone who is sexist and racist and brags about sexual assault to be president.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              While it is true the source - Hillary Clinton herself when she returned the stolen goods - is not reliable, it is good enough for me.  It is possible she quickly went out and bought the stuff, returning it to protect the real thief because it was a good friend, but I really don't think it went down that way.

              Absolutely her attitude of being above the law is a concern...just one that is vastly overridden by a Republican that opened himself to claims of sexual assault.  Right?  I mean, that national security was secondary to saving a few seconds of Clinton's precious time was bad enough, but the expressed attitude that she is above the laws the rest of the plebes have to follow is more important in my eyes.  But it is certainly less important than a conservative that has said sexist words!!!

              1. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                That's the sort of nonsense that usually comes from right-wing "blogs". Unless you have independent evidence from a reliable source, don't bother. I'm surprised though. You don't usually entertain such drivel. Just goes to show the effect the election is having.

                Once again, Clinton using a personal server for her emails does not justify putting someone who is sexist and racist (which includes sexist and racist behaviour) in the whitehouse.

                1. Valeant profile image90
                  Valeantposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I'm just astonished that the left has put up a candidate for President that has a trial date set to defend himself on allegations he raped a 13-year old girl.  Allegations that can be corroborated by another witness.  WTF?

                  1. Marisa Wright profile image92
                    Marisa Wrightposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Don't you mean the right?

            2. ahorseback profile image51
              ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              In regards to  e-mails , I just watched Obama tell an interviewer -- "No ,I didn't know that Hilary had a private server at home " ........I can't believe the stupidity of both . Obama -Clinton , and the absolute   that State Dept  communications  emails, .security should be and should have been paramount !

              That defines the security of  Gov. communications today under the Obama - Clinton administration !

              1. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                Does that justify putting someone who is racist and sexist in the whitehouse? Nope. It doesn't.

                1. ahorseback profile image51
                  ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Are  you talking about Hilary  in that way !

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Actually, if there are only two options - one that is sexist and one that puts personal convenience ahead of even normal small requirements for national security the choice is pretty clear.  And if that person is to become President, privy to every secret and every security risk we have, the choice is not only clear but necessary for any thinking, reasoning person.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    That is the picture you paint, but as to whether it is accurate or not is a matter of opinion...

                  2. Don W profile image84
                    Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    The issue of using a personal server for emails can be fixed with a technical solution.

                    Being sexist and racist cannot.

                    There's no indication Trump even understands that he is sexist and racist. The only thing that's clear is that someone with a negative bias towards women and minorities, should not be president.

        2. RJ Schwartz profile image93
          RJ Schwartzposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          If we're talking racism, is it safe to say Obama himself is a racist?  I mean he always jumps to support other blacks before the evidence is even fully been examined - Travon Martin, BLM (clearly a militant organization,) and so on.  I'm not in favor of racism but it goes both ways.  Sexism?  Bill Clinton was impeached for it and refused to step aside from office.

          1. ahorseback profile image51
            ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            The greatest and most successful sexist in the world is the one who supports Lock ,stock and barrel  the true sexist ,   Hilary  is more of a sexist than Bill himself !  Look at the pay differences between guys and dolls in her offices , in the foundation  , in the State Dept !

          2. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            "If we're talking racism, is it safe to say Obama himself is a racist?  . . ."
            No it's not.

            ". . . Sexism?  Bill Clinton was impeached for it and refused to step aside from office."
            1 Look up the actual reason Bill Clinton was impeached.
            2 Bill Clinton is not running for president.

    5. Misfit Chick profile image95
      Misfit Chickposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      The first sentence is about the big, bad Democrats mistreating Trump; and the second one is about how Trump's own party is mistreating him - when many Republicans weren't all that wild about him winning the ticket in the first place. Why the surprise there? Its a moral issue; and conservatives are notorious for abandoning causes over moral issues. It is why many of them didn't want The Donald on their ticket in the first place.

      The way more women are coming out after the fact is NORMAL - how many times have we seen this happen? Look at how many women came out to accuse Bill Cosby afterwards, for example. NORMAL. That doesn't mean that he's guilty anymore than it means that he's NOT guilty. Frankly, Trump was asking for more when he pulled that 'press conference with Bill's accusers' stunt. That was the wrong way to respond.

      If Bill had been the one running for office, maybe... But it was just incredibly bad taste (as so many of his responses suspiciously are - I mean, who the heck would have advised him to go through with such a thing? People who know EXACTLY how to stir up right-wing conservatives, that's who. The same people who keep advising him to ramp up this ridiculous 'rigged voting' issue).

      FYI, as much as conservatives and the GOP would like to take credit for Trump being on the ticket; there are probably almost as many Independents and Liberals who support him. Democratic politicians of course CAN'T support Trump because he isn't in their party. But 'out here' in the country, SURPRISE - the right wing needs to stop taking all the credit, as much as they would like to.

      This means that many of the same kind of people who voted Obama into office two terms in a row - are now voting for Trump. Of course if this is true, that would mean that conservatives for Trump would have to admit that Hillary and the Democrats are not demons... kind of hard, I know.

      What so many people ARE doing, is completely ignoring what their OWN parties and media pundits are doing to keep Americans heavily divided - because that is how we are most profitable and controllable: when we're angry, afraid and suspicous of the opposing 'exteme'.

      That sad truth has never been more obvious than this particular election. Its almost like Trump is TRYING to make sure Hillary wins; and at times, I have wondered if someone hasn't paid him in some way (from the beginning) to act the way he has. Maybe he doesn't need money, but maybe he's getting bored... Let's jump into the political arena. Sounds like fun!

      It just feels like a lot of his most outrageous moments have been staged (suspiciously, as I said above); and they are easy to incorporate among all the chaos - and not just chaos, but OUTRAGEOUS chaos - he has caused. Perhaps he'd make a better political puppet than most of us think, ha!

      In any case, even if he is 'real'... how long would he remain that way if he wins the Presidency? That is one of the main reasons why Obama supporters are voting for Trump. They're looking for a real revolutionary - it is the attitude that is important, not the platform on which they stand. Because as we know, no President or political party ever gets hardly anything they want because of all the opposing forces. I mean, its not like we stop arguing about things once the election is over, right?

      The last President turned out to be 'progressive' but far more complacent than anticipated - so lets try someone even MORE outrageous than Obama... Btw, that is not an endorsement, just a bunch of observations. *I* am not voting for Trump. I am all for a good revolutionary, but I have my standards. And, Hillary is a perfectly acceptible revolutionary for me. smile

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13240393.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13240410.jpg

    6. 60
      jaap343posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      Quite interesting

    7. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      VP Creepy Joe Biden Caught Groping Young Girls On Camera
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IL5u5U39Qo

      Very unbecoming of a Vice President in the White House.

      1. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        "I gave Obama a Blow Job While he was Smoking Crack"
        Video:   https://twitter.com/WDFx2EU7/status/784628146951823361
        ?

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago

    And the people are BUYING IT??? We are supposedly evolving. Doesn't seem like it. I think the opposite is occurring. Think about the nation's children witnessing all this. WHAT MUST THEY THINK?
    Is it helping toward their development into adulthood?
    Maybe they will learn how NOT TO BE!!!!
    But usually, they become what they see.

    No one thinks of the kids. sad

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      They aren't paying attention. Just quiz a college student as to who the Vice President is or who won the Civil War and they don't have a clue. Now ask who got killed on the last "Game of Thrones" episode and they will give you the correct answer without a hesitation.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        I'm thinking of the younger kids.
        The most alert and aware are in elementary school. What are they hearing on mom and dad's TV news station? Talk radio? Internet news sources? Imagine: How would you have felt, (back in the 60's when you were in elementary school?) if the media had been bla bla blabbing about John F. Kennedy's affair with actress, Marilyn Monroe and then her questionable and horrible death/murder?
        What would you have thought about presidents, the country they govern, your life in such a world?

        How about today's parents who are desperately trying to raise their children in our world? They want to shield them from all bad, but they can't escape it
        at all
        anymore.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          What I remember of JFK's presidency was the hoopla over him being Catholic. That his loyalties would be divided between the Pope and the American people. I also remember the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis and of course his assassination. I was eight at the time. I was not shielded from the news and watched his casket and the backward boots in the stirrups behind the caisson hauling his body down the street and that foreboding snare drum cadence. I remember the Vietnamese soldier  who executed a Viet Cong soldier on national television while eating dinner. I also remember the naked Vietnamese girl running away from her exploding village. I was convinced of the horror of war from this. I also think I am more grounded and understanding of the good and evil that walks among us for this childhood.

          If we continue to tell our children what a rosy pink world this is and not the truth then we do them a terrible disservice as evidenced by the young millennials who haven't a clue about their past or their future. They look to immediate gratification and that will change nothing as it is fleeting and the political powers that be will pay them all the double speak necessary to influence their vote against their own interests.

          The latest flurry of detestable stories coming from these two candidates is a testament to how corrupt and broken our system is. These are wretched people! Both of them. Should we believe the fairy tales both are promising? One says that they will create a border less world where all can come and "share" in our freedom free of charge while the other throws us lollypop dreams of how wonderful they will make the country using the same old tired and played before policies. Both of them are selling snake oil while Congress continues the bidding of their benefactors.

          I am now, more than ever, convinced we need to fail miserably before we are awakened from our apathetic stupor.

        2. ahorseback profile image51
          ahorsebackposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          You should be more worried about what these kids are doing behind everybody's back with cell phones and the internet .     Or in the bathroom stalls  at school , or in sleepovers at Janie's .  No  we can't use the kids as victims  , America has already victimized it's youth perfectly well .

          For me it was also in the sixties ,the  Kennedy assassination ,instantly  hero-izing him soon afterwards ,war hero  ,  social justice hero , then as we age we find out  him and the Clintons shared a common interest , prostitutes , painkillers  and lies .

  3. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 7 weeks ago

    Americans need to start ignoring the news media  just like they have stopping buying magazines  and news papers . Watch them shrivel to nothing and let honesty , accuracy and integrity rise from the ashes once again perhaps !

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      "MSM is the enemy of the American people".... remember?

      They spread the Benghazi lies until after obama got reelected. Then their lies were old news and not reported. Their fix is in this one too. They are going all out. Of course they have to, to sell hillary. Shesa plug nickel even as politicians go. She cant stray far from her script even when she knows the questions.

      She couldnt even do her crony job as sec state. Which is a bigger national security risk, isis or hillary on her smartphone.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago

    Maybe we should erect some boundaries:

    No dredging up the past.
    No character assassinations.
    Stick to the issues.
    No moderators.
    Each candidate should be able to speak/explain his position for as long as common courtesy allows.
    He who refuses to exhibit common courtesy forfeits their nomination, (after the third strike.)


    Something like that.

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image93
      RJ Schwartzposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      The old fashioned stump method could do exactly that - each candidate was given 30 minutes to make their case to the nation with no interruptions - I was about what they could do, not what the other person couldn't

      1. ahorseback profile image51
        ahorsebackposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        Good point !    Not this circus sideshow !

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          Its all about the circus. You dont think the 1% is pandering for faux votes without thinking of Bastille Day.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Kathryn I really think your heart is in the right place but we are way beyond simplistic solutions to this very complex system of lies and deception. Giving less attention to a slick talker who can manipulate and turn an election on the coining of a phrase is far greater than talking out a candidates history on the topic and their lifestyle. Can we expect the system to weed out these slime bags before they take over? Of course we can but the system has to be able to do it. Money covers a multitude of sins and money is at the root of it all. How many sell a little piece of their soul to assure we continue in our job? Our morality has been for sale on the floor of the Congress for years while we over throw governments, assassinate foreign dictators or up and coming tyrants at the behest of a top campaign contributor. This train is off track and simple solutions that are short and to the point would make the scumbags even more less accountable.

      Money has to be taken out of the mix as well as career aspirations of setting up their own fiefdom of influence and bribes. It has to start at the local level with those who exhibit leadership and good solutions and are not squashed by those who hold a heavy hand on their future.

      Has either candidate come up with a way to pay down the debt? How about the deficit spending? We seem to wish to ignore this grown beyond comprehension cancer that will bring the whole temple down on our heads yet we are fed like cattle the latest sexploits of people I don't want to know about of have a mental image of acts or behavior that is so far from the point.

      We have become a collective National Enquirer nation of innuendo and deception.

  5. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/14568238_546726462180851_3687769612097773628_n.jpg?oh=d9f14053efdb05151b6b2ae96e176ad4&oe=589B0D6C

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Yeah... except not.

      Jill Harth filed a lawsuit against Trump for sexual harassment in 1997.

      Several female employees at one his golf courses took him to court for sexual harassment and unfair treatment in 2013.

      And the allegations of him raping a 13 year old girl came out back in April.

      1. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        I think that would have been news worthy in 1997, if it was true.  I can not find anything that would convince me that it isn't just another fabrication.   It would have made the front cover of News Weeks, Time and People for sure...but I don't see it. 

        http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13236474.jpghttp://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13236475.jpg

      2. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        All of which were determined to be false. No jail time, no payout, nothing. Hillary on the other hand has a lengthy body count.

        https://citizenwells.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/hillarydnc-deaths.jpg?w=500&h=282

        1. Aime F profile image84
          Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          Hmm, again, not quite.

          Jill Harth dropped the lawsuit after Trump paid off her husband. 

          The ladies at his golf course claiming to be sexually harrassed were part of a class action lawsuit that did get paid out.

          And the case of the 13 year old will be addressed in December - but apparently you've already decided he's not guilty so what's the point.

          1. Onusonus profile image88
            Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

            Yeah, turns out the sexual harrasment was a lie
            http://gotnews.com/busted-nytimes-trump … ly-friend/

            The rape was a publicity stunt concocted by an ex producer of the Seinfeld show.
            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … other.html

            Meanwhile in the real world...

            http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/imageedit_1541_3043924093.jpg

            1. Aime F profile image84
              Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

              And you're so quick to believe the accuser's cousin but not the accuser because....?

              You know what, nevermind.  I'm not sure it's worth my effort trying to understand someone who talks mostly in sensationalized memes.

  6. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/14721479_566892670173403_883265619056249043_n.jpg?oh=06a0443474a82e2ab6112e290e1b42af&oe=58A240A0

  7. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EgXqKP0XKGM/SZr70QTa-ZI/AAAAAAAAAUw/-2qa1Cbn0ec/s400/Arkancide+Hillary+sees+dead+people.jpg

  8. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/28/6f/57/286f570d0ac07d274af0aa682e4bc553.jpg

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/90/76/74/90767439629db61d0c09fee965e5055c.jpg

  9. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/14721661_609542179249770_8276338385990846534_n.png?oh=bfc585e9ef2ee83e266c2f80648836ab&oe=589BCBD0

  10. mrpopo profile image88
    mrpopoposted 7 weeks ago

    Even if you take his statements as sincere and without exaggeration, the part where he says "they let you do it" indicates consent, not sexual assault.

    1. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Hi Mr. Popo!  Did you notice that the audio made crackling and clicking sounds?  That happens when clips are put together to make one audio video.  You didn't even get to see the Donald saying the words that were put together out of context.  Pretty poor video hoax if you ask me.

      1. IslandBites profile image86
        IslandBitesposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        Hoax lol

        “I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize,” - Donald Trump

      2. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        I'm not skeptical about the video, I'm skeptical about the timing of the release + subsequent accusations.

    2. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Lack of protest or resistance does not indicate consent.

      Trump admitted he acts without waiting for any indication of consent: "…I just start kissing them. I don’t even wait…” Touching someone intimately, for the purpose of sexual gratification, without any indication of consent, is sexual assault. Trump is on record as saying he commits sexual assault.

      1. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        Lack of protest or resistance (i.e. most sexual encounters) does not indicate lack of consent, either.

        He said he doesn't wait, period, not that he doesn't wait for consent. You can contextualize what he doesn't wait for in several ways. Here are a few examples:

        "I don't even wait [to figure out how to approach them]."

        "I don't even wait [to flirt with them first]."

        "I don't even wait [for their consent]."

        Given that he was referring to his own lack of inhibition ("I'm automatically attracted to beautiful" and "it's like a magnet) the context is more likely that he doesn't hesitate to go for a kiss, not that the kiss is non-consensual.

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          You do get that you are not entitled to touch someone intimately just because they haven't told you not to, right? You get that you have to assume a woman you've just met does not want you to kiss her on the lips or grab her crotch? That may be difficult for you and Donald Trump to grasp, but if it makes it easier for you just remember: in the absence of a positive indication of consent (verbal or nonverbal) lack of consent is the default.

          As for the, frankly ludicrous, rationalization you've offered for Trump's remarks. If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, you'd be at Gabby Douglas' level. In the second debate Trump denied committing sexual assault. He did not deny describing it. In fact he tacitly accepted Anderson Cooper's characterization of his comments as describing sexual assault. He only said he had not performed the actions he described, i.e. sexual assault.

          12 women have come forward to say that Trump did in fact commit sexual assault, over four different decades. Several of those allegations were conveyed privately before the 2005 tape was publicly known, and fit the description Trump bragged about. Whether those allegations are true remains to be seen.

          Regardless, someone who brags about committing sexual assault should not be president.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

            I'm getting a kick out of the fake moral indignation the left is displaying.

            Multiple women accused Bill. Hillary called them trash and declared no one would believe them.

            That was ok. And now Trump is unfit but she isn't.  I'm laughing out loud at the hypocrisy.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

              Once again, repeat after me "Bill Clinton is not running for president".

              And once again, someone who brags about committing sexual assault (regardless of whether they have or not) should not be president.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

                And someone who demeans women who were sexually assaulted by insisting they are trash, so why believe them, should not be president.

                Can we just throw these two back and get some more respectable candidates?

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I've seen this claim against Hillary Clinton a few times now. Trump himself said "Hillary Clinton 'viciously' attacked women who accused Bill Clinton of abuse". But I've haven't seen any clear independent evidence that it's true, have you? I have seen fact-checks that say it's mostly false though(1).

                  In contrast it is a fact that Trump boasted about grabbing women by the p***y.

                  Someone who brags about committing sexual assault should not be president. Someone who is a "textbook racist" should not be president. Someone who makes sexist remarks again and again and again, should not be president.

                  This is not about politics. It's just common decency. If you want an alternative to Clinton, fair enough. But field a candidate who is not sexist and racist, and who does not brag about sexual assault. I think that's the bare minimum people should be able to expect from a presidential candidate. With Trump, the bar is not so much low, as currently through the floor. Unfortunately his supporters are so desperate for that damned wall etc., they'll accept any level of behaviour, which can only hurt in the long run.

                  (1) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ly-attack/

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    No clear Evidence?

                    roll

                    Once again we find the delusional Hillary defense impedes rational conversation.

                    Enjoy the fantasy.

          2. mrpopo profile image88
            mrpopoposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            "You do get that you are not entitled to touch someone intimately just because they haven't told you not to, right?"

            Unsurprising that you resort to strawmanning my position. I never said that you are entitled to touch people without their verbally expressed approval (and neither did Trump). All that I said was that the act of touching people intimately without their verbally expressed approval is a regular part of the courtship process for humans.

            In other words, people can touch others intimately without expressed verbal consent. People are not entitled to touch others intimately without expressed verbal consent.

            "You get that you have to assume a woman you've just met does not want you to kiss her on the lips or grab her crotch?"

            An obvious rule of thumb, but it depends on the context. In nightclubs, parties, and other social events of that nature it is quite common to see individuals who have barely met engage in consensual intimate acts. Such locations are possible and probable places for a beautiful woman to have met Trump.

            There's also no indication that Trump has literally just met these women and begins kissing them upon first sight. As I mentioned, the "I don't even wait" could be "I don't even wait [a second]" or "I don't even wait [to think about starting the courtship process]." Entirely different contexts. Thus we have no idea whether he immediately kisses these women upon first sight (which would be rather ridiculous to assume) or whether he immediately engages in the process of courtship i.e. conversation, buying a drink, flirting etc.

            "That may be difficult for you and Donald Trump to grasp, but if it makes it easier for you just remember: in the absence of a positive indication of consent (verbal or nonverbal) lack of consent is the default."

            There is no indication that Trump did not obtain a positive indication of consent (verbal or nonverbal). In the absence of a positive indication of a crime, innocence is the default. That may be difficult for you and the lynchmob to understand.

            "As for the, frankly ludicrous, rationalization you've offered for Trump's remarks. If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, you'd be at Gabby Douglas' level."

            Ironic coming from the biggest mental gymnast around here. This is what you said about hyperbolic triangles:

            The established meaning of triangle is: "a polygon with three edges and three vertices." Is that a polygon with three edges and three vertices? Nope. Therefore, by definition, it's not a triangle.

            I don't fault you for not understanding what a point at infinity is. I do fault you for doubling down on your interpretation and rationalizing the triangle away because of your limited understanding. But as you have demonstrated countless times in our discussions, I am not surprised that you opt for that route. It is easier to double down on your cognitive dissonance, to the point of dismissing established mathematical concepts, than to modify your worldview.

            "In the second debate Trump denied committing sexual assault. He did not deny describing it. In fact he tacitly accepted Anderson Cooper's characterization of his comments as describing sexual assault. He only said he had not performed the actions he described, i.e. sexual assault."

            No, he flatly denied describing it as well:

            Cooper: "You called what you said "locker room banter." You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?"

            Trump: "No I didn't say that at all. I don't think you understood what was said."

            I await your further mental gymnastics, Gabby.

            1. mrpopo profile image88
              mrpopoposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              I would like to correct one thing from my post

              "Thus we have no idea whether he immediately kisses these women upon first sight (which would be rather ridiculous to assume) or whether he immediately engages in the process of courtship i.e. conversation, buying a drink, flirting etc."

              We actually do know from the same video that he engages in the process of courtship. This is what he said:

              "I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and [expletive] her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture, I said, I'll show you were to find some furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there."

              Here he tries to woo a woman named Nancy by taking her furniture shopping, but it doesn't pay off.

              Does this scenario illustrate

              a) that he engages Nancy by groping and kissing her without her consent?
              b) that he engages Nancy by wooing her in courtship (furniture shopping) and upon failing, stops?

            2. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Uh oh. Your attempt to continue that discussion from a while back suggests I may have triggered you again. Apologies for that. You know what will follow. A series of increasingly overwrought posts where you obsessively try to demonstrate you are right (I can already see the warning signs). Having witnessed that once, I'll give it a miss this time round, and just leave you with:

              Regardless of politics, someone who brags about committing sexual assault, as Trump has, should not be president. Someone who is a "textbook racist", should not be president. Someone who makes sexist remarks over and over, should not be president. You can rationalize as much as you want, but it's really that simple.

              1. mrpopo profile image88
                mrpopoposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                I'm not continuing that discussion, I'm referencing one minor facet as an example of your mental gymnastics. Which you continue to demonstrate here to great effect by intentionally conflating a reference as a continuation. But you already knew that.

                My only regret with that discussion is giving you the benefit of the doubt for so long. It took me too long to realize that you weren't being obtuse, dishonest and fallacious out of ignorance (either yours or mine), but that you were doing so deliberately as a strategy.

                There's no need for your false empathy. I take solace in the fact that I aspire to be truthful. Your evasion tells me you can't say the same.

                With that said, Trump did not brag about committing sexual assault. But then again, you already knew that.

    3. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Do you think it's okay to walk up to a woman and kiss/touch her without asking her first?  Why should anyone be able to skip that step and then argue 'consent' just because the woman (who could be too scared or feel overpowered) didn't fight it?

      You often hear stories of women who are assaulted/raped who protest at first but after realizing they can't get away will just wait for it to be over.  At the point they stop fighting does that mean they've consented?

      1. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        Yes, it can be okay to kiss a person without verbally asking them first, and that is indeed the case most of the time. Most of human communication is done non-grammatically i.e. non-verbally, via sounds, body language and touch. This disparity between grammatical and non-grammatical communication is even more pronounced in sexual communication.

        The segment in this video from ~8:14 to ~9:40 explains why most sexual communication is done non-grammatically: https://youtu.be/9RQIpwi-K9s?t=494 (apologies in advance for the crass language used by the author).

        The women in the above clip are communicating many of the tell-tale signs of sexual interest without uttering a word. That implies consent, incidentally. As the author demonstrates in that clip, grammatical consent is often overriden by non-grammatical consent.

        Of course, communication is never perfect. There can be signs of invitation given unwittingly and misinterpretations of interest when there were none. Here is a scene from the show Friends that demonstrates this to great effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me6Y16NpDug

        Here Ross misinterpreted signals of family friendliness and intimacy (which happened throughout the episode) as signals of sexual interest. This culminated in him taking a chance and leaning in for a kiss with his cousin. Is this sexual assault? Note that he immediately stops when he realizes how wrong he was. Another thing to wonder: how many times did the characters in the show ask for consent before kissing one another? How many times did it just spontaneously happen?

        You've brought up a specific scenario of feigned consent for self-preservation. Nothing in Trump's quote indicates that he would keep going if they protest it (like Ross' cousin did above). All that he said is that he impulsively kisses women and they let him. If there is a reason to suspect that they were afraid or felt overpowered and that is the reason they did nothing to stop it (as opposed to, say, them actually willing to be kissed by a rich and famous businessman), it is not demonstrated in his quote.

        1. mrpopo profile image88
          mrpopoposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          In regards to the last paragraph, Trump actually gives the reason why they let him kiss them:

          "And when you’re a star they let you do it."

          As opposed to:

          "And when they're afraid and you've overpowered them they let you do it."

          Concluding the latter from the former is highly dishonest.

          1. Aime F profile image84
            Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

            But why are we assuming that he knows why they let him do it?  He doesn't know that.  Only the woman knows that.

            I get what you're saying about non-verbal consent but the words "I don't even wait" are questionable.  Sexual relationships are usually based on trust, love, and/or mutual attraction.  If he "doesn't wait" then is he even waiting for the cues that the woman is attracted to him/wants to be touched?

            1. mrpopo profile image88
              mrpopoposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

              a)

              Neither Trump nor anyone here have claimed that he or themselves know with absolute certainty why the women let him do it. His theory is it's because of his status as a star i.e. fame, money and power. It's a reasonable assumption not only because of the pattern of women that have dated him (beautiful models) but there's also well-established scientific evidence that women prefer men with resources and status (1, 2).

              From our discussion we know of several possibilities that could have transpired, and we have several assumptions we can make:

              1) They let him do it because they were attracted to his appearance/physique/wealth/status/personality (consensual genuine interest)
              2) They let him do it because they wanted access to his resources (consensual feigned interest)
              3) They let him do it because they were concerned about their safety (afraid or overpowered) if they didn't let him (non-consensual feigned interest)

              To return your question to you: why are you assuming that you know why they let him do it? Why are you assuming that it was non-consensual feigned interest? The other two explanations are perfectly valid and make more sense given the context of his statements, yet you are assuming the worst of Trump based on what he didn't say in private braggadocious conversation among guys.

              b)

              I assume you personally have kissed and have been kissed by other people before. Did you ask or were you asked for consent each and every time? And when retelling these stories in private, would you make a point of it being absolutely consensual? Or would it be implied?

              For instance, here's a hypothetical retelling of something that could have happened:

              "Tommy kissed me last night. I didn't expect it, he caught me off-guard. It was so spontaneous and romantic."

              Nowhere in that story does our hypothetical woman state that she consented to the kiss. In fact, given that she didn't expect it, she had no indication that our hypothetical Tommy was going to kiss her, so she can't have consented. Would you conclude the above was a case of a girl being sexually assaulted, simply because she didn't make it explicitly clear that she gave consent? Or would you contextualize the situation?

              c)

              I don't know whether or not he is waiting for the cues or interpreting the cues correctly, and neither do you. As I've stated previously, communication errors can happen. He doesn't know with certainty that a woman is attracted to him/wants to be touched. No person can know with 100% certainty whether or not another person is attracted or wants to be approached or for what reason, even when taking non-verbal cues into account. But that is a risk that the initiating party has to take in order to begin courtship.

              When such a misunderstanding happens, one could obviously stop letting the other party from kissing them. Here is an example again from Friends (can you tell that I like the show?): https://youtu.be/zQ_yjaoNhWM?t=250

              Note that when Rachel complains (despite being at least somewhat interested in Chandler, she didn't want to be kissed at that moment) it stops the kissing. Chandler took a chance at an inappropriate time and Rachel rejected/stopped the kiss. Do you consider what Chandler did sexual assault? Or a misunderstanding/bad timing? (Note that in this case she resumes immediately as soon as she hears that he's in college and in a band - signs of maturity and ambition, which correlate with status and wealth. It also helps that she was already interested).

              d)

              As I said, most sexual communication is non-grammatical. When it is grammatical and when it is taken to an extreme of consenting to every single action you do, you get something ridiculous like this video from Concordia University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHYvUp … sJ7ocOuFMw

              Is this realistic? No. Is this sexually appealing? Unlikely. The comments and the lack of ratings tell you that this was a complete miss from Concordia. I'm sure they know how courtships actually happen, but blinded by ideological re-definitions about what a sexual assault is, they doubled-down and portrayed the situation in a way that would not happen 99% of the time, and that many men and women alike would not find appealing (3-6). As is succintly noted by the author of (7):

              "If I’m on a date with you and it’s going well, duh, I want a kiss and if I don’t, I’ll [expletive] turn my cheek. It’s not rocket science."

              It isn't, and indeed, I find myself wondering why I have to explain these things to people. More alarming is that this is the issue that has likely decided the election, of all things. Not corruption, not threat of war, not terrorism, not immigration, but a story of Trump's sexually aggressive advances. Truly, the priorities of Americans are in order. But I digress.

              What Trump described is his heuristic approach, namely that he has been highly successful in kissing women because of his stardom. I don't know for certain whether he specifically truly does have a high success rate, but given that there is scientific backing in his claim and that observationally we do tend to see many beautiful women with rich and powerful men (but who are otherwise not attractive physically), I see no reason to doubt him. I further don't see any reason to assume that because we don't have full knowledge of the situation, that the situation must have been sexual assault.



              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



              Apologies for the lack of brevity. Here's a TL;DR of what I would like to know from you:

              a) Why is it reasonable to assume that the women let him do it because they were afraid/overpowered, but not reasonable to assume that it was because they were attracted to Trump's wealth and status?
              b) Do you think that, when retelling a story, the omission of an implied detail (like consent) is evidence that it never happened?
              c) Do you think that it's sexual assault when a person misreads a situation and kisses someone that did not want to be kissed? Do you think it should be?
              d) Do you think the Concordia University model is a realistic form of human courtship? Do you think it should be?

              1. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(1), 1-49.
              2. Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 447-458.
              3. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comm … ermission/
              4. https://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingP … 23133.aspx
              5. https://riptskinsystems.com/blogs/news/ … to-kiss-me
              6. http://www.city-data.com/forum/relation … -lame.html
              7. http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/201 … -feminism/

              1. Aime F profile image84
                Aime Fposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                Okay, I've written, deleted, re-written, and deleted again a big long explanation of why I view this the way that I do.  I'm posting a more vague description and hopefully my point still comes across without the nitty gritty details.

                I grew up in a sports town.  Our local pro-athletes were regarded as celebrities and they often paraded around the city eating up attention.  By the time I was 18 and going out on a somewhat regular basis I had run into several of them.  Without going into too much detail:  not one, not two, but THREE of them had put me in uncomfortable positions that I now cringe thinking about.  And I let them put me in awkward situations because they were 'famous' and they were valued and I thought it would be somehow rude or disrespectful to tell them they were being inappropriate.  They were not situations that I actively sought out, though many girls did, so I thought to myself "even if I don't want this attention I should feel lucky that I'm getting it because he's important."  It's a very strange thought process, being in a situation that you don't really want to be in but not wanting to protest because you're being shown affection from someone who is "special." 

                So yeah, I get it.  I get that these men feel like they can make moves on women because they're used to being liked but the assumption that they can be aggressive because most women like them is dangerous.  I'm thinking back on it now and perhaps being friendly was taken as an invitation to say/do things that I didn't really feel I was inviting them to do.  Was it my fault?  Are women supposed to be extra clear about NOT consenting to something when it comes to celebrities because they assume consent from most of them at the slightest hint of friendliness?  Yes, it's easy to look back now and think about how simple it would have been to say "stop doing that" or "stop talking like that" but the entire time I kept trying to convince myself that it was fine and that I should be grateful for the attention from someone like that, and that's f***ed up.  On another level I was also a little bit scared because when a man you don't really know (who is usually substantially bigger than you) comes on VERY strong it catches you off guard.

                Funnily enough those are the only people who have ever come on that aggressively or made moves on me when I didn't want them to so I have to wonder if celebrities either a) are so used to women wanting their affection that they can no longer tell when one doesn't, or b) they know that most women are going to feel a bit 'star struck' in their presence and are less likely to object and they take advantage of it.

                Again, without going into too much detail, I have never claimed to be sexually assaulted.  However, if a tape was released where these guys said the things Trump said then I would probably feel violated because it sounds like he KNOWS that women tend to be less likely to shut it down when they're being approached/touched by someone who has a level of perceived power.  That's what bugs me.

                So, you know what, no I don't know exactly what every woman Donald Trump has kissed or touched was thinking but I'm inclined to believe the women who have come forward saying they've received unwanted and inappropriate attention from him because of the words he used and because I can so easily put myself in that spot.  Maybe it clouds my ability to be super duper objective but maybe it also gives me some valuable insight into why those words seem so harmful to so many people.

                Anyway, it gets emotionally exhausting listening to people write this all off as nothing when I can imagine what kind of pain and anger I'd be feeling if it was the guys who I've had experiences with who said that stuff.

                So I guess as a weird mish-mash answer to some of your questions, whether it would be considered sexual assault or not might be entirely based on the intention.  Was it an honest misread of cues?  Then no.  Was it a gamble that the woman would let it happen because it's easier to take advantage of her because of your status?  Then I'm gonna say yes.  Trump's words came off as bragging, as being proud of the fact that he could do whatever he wanted to because he had status.

                PS.  I'm obsessed with Friends and had to smile at it being brought up as a serious example in a serious discussion.  It's nice to throw in some fluffy stuff every once in a while!  I'm one of the very few people I know whose favourite character is Ross.  People usually think I'm joking.  lol

                1. mrpopo profile image88
                  mrpopoposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I appreciate the thoughtful response and your intent at having a clear and honest discussion. You've made a lot of good points that I'd like to touch on:

                  "Are women supposed to be extra clear about NOT consenting to something when it comes to celebrities because they assume consent from most of them at the slightest hint of friendliness?"

                  In my opinion, yes. Women and men are supposed to make it crystal clear about not consenting to something from anyone. This might be truer of celebrities because they're used to getting sexual attention at the drop of a hat but it's also true for instance, when a person misreads a situation, either because of unwanted giving of cues (like Ross' cousin) or because they aren't able to read these cues accurately.

                  I have an autistic friend who has a ton of difficulty reading people's nongrammatical communication. If he were to try to read someone's cues of interest, he'd likely see cues that weren't there or he'd ignore cues that were there. Unfortunately it's something he's going to have to work on and it will likely result in awkward situations for him in the future. If it happens that he touches someone without them giving those cues of invitation or interest, or if he is touched by someone because he unwittingly gave cues of invitation or interest, I hope they're both able to be mature enough to give him a clear sign of not consent (in his case, he'd be able to understand and deliver a strict verbal "no").

                  In a similar fashion, celebrities could be miscalibrated in their interpretations of consent or nonconsent, if only because they're more successful at it. In another discussion I was asked about what would I do if I were alone with Madonna, smiling and starstruck, and if she were to plant a kiss on me and grab my junk. I said I would turn my cheek, back away, extend arms out and say "Sorry, but I'm not interested. Hope there's no hard feelings." In other words, I'd give 3 nongrammatical cues of non-interest and one explicit grammatical cue of non-interest (which heavily implies non-consent). This type of situation and the appropriate response is true for men and women alike.

                  However, I understand that there is a power disparity when a tall and muscle-bound football player approaches you aggressively. And I understand it can be difficult to say no. But it is important to communicate lack of consent clearly, because communicating consent is typically muddier and iffier (the same cues can mean consent or non-consent). Non-consent is and has to be crystal clear.

                  I also understand the part about being conditioned to accept unwanted attention. I don't know if there's a clear solution apart from stopping that conditioning and thinking for yourself. I can see you already do that. The bottom line is that has to be a solution that comes from oneself. I can't speak for them, but I don't think the football players approaching you have any idea that you're not protesting because you think it'd be rude or disrespectful to do so. The solution can't come from them because they're not mindreaders. If they feel entitled to your attention because they're football players, that's another story.

                  Incidentally, I'm not saying it was your fault that you didn't protest unwanted attention. I'm just saying it's also not the football player's fault (from what I can tell) if they couldn't predict that you didn't want their attention.

                  “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
                  ― George Bernard Shaw

                  It can be uncomfortable to clearly state non-consent. I've been touched inappropriately before and I've had to clearly state (after many, many occasions of being touched by this individual, and many not-so-subtle hints that I didn't like it) that I didn't like being touched by them in that manner, and for them to cut it out permanently. I had to state it quite clearly and firmly. They were upset and offended that I was so firmly rejecting this behaviour because they thought it was a playful thing, but I didn't like it, and never gave any cues of approval. Without getting into too much detail, it was surprisingly similar to this Key and Peele sketch (probably NSFW, but worth watching): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtu4g5MhWX0

                  Oh, and this individual is neither autistic nor a celebrity. Misread cues can happen to normal people too. The best solution I see is to correct that miscommunication with a clear and strict no. Otherwise, you'd have to resort to Concordia's model of consent (which, I don't know about you, but I find it silly and a mood-killer).

                  "Funnily enough those are the only people who have ever come on that aggressively or made moves on me when I didn't want them to so I have to wonder if celebrities either a) are so used to women wanting their affection that they can no longer tell when one doesn't, or b) they know that most women are going to feel a bit 'star struck' in their presence and are less likely to object and they take advantage of it."

                  You are absolutely right, but I'd like to add option c) they know that most women are going to feel a bit 'star struck' in their presence and are more likely to accept and they take advantage of it. And of course, option d) all of the above, to varying degrees.

                  There is a difference between being more likely to accept and less likely to reject. To me, it looked like Trump was referring to the former, not the latter. I'm willing to believe him on this because we tend to see this pattern of beautiful women (i.e. women way out of their leagues) going out with people in his demographic group (rich, white, old, male) not because they can't say no, but because they want access to his resources.

                  Of course it's entirely possible that women, when placed in that situation, may feel less inclined to reject him, despite wanting to. I still maintain that, like most people, Trump is not a mindreader and that you have to give explicit denial of interest or consent for him to understand.

                  "However, if a tape was released where these guys said the things Trump said then I would probably feel violated because it sounds like he KNOWS that women tend to be less likely to shut it down when they're being approached/touched by someone who has a level of perceived power."

                  It could be that he's saying that, but he could also be saying that he knows they're more likely to accept his approach (again, as opposed to less likely to reject it). There's no way we can tell which is which, but typically guys would brag about women accepting their approach, as opposed to not being able to reject it.

                  "Anyway, it gets emotionally exhausting listening to people write this all off as nothing when I can imagine what kind of pain and anger I'd be feeling if it was the guys who I've had experiences with who said that stuff."

                  I understand but I want to make it clear that I'm not writing it off as nothing. It could be something. But it could be nothing. For me there are too many things that cast doubt into a literal interpretation of his story. When I'm in doubt of a person's innocence or guilt I default to their innocence, even with someone as piggish as Trump.

                  "So I guess as a weird mish-mash answer to some of your questions, whether it would be considered sexual assault or not might be entirely based on the intention.  Was it an honest misread of cues?  Then no.  Was it a gamble that the woman would let it happen because it's easier to take advantage of her because of your status?  Then I'm gonna say yes."

                  I think you've hit the nail on the head but I want to invoke the distinction between

                  a) gambling that it's easier because the woman is more willing to accept
                  and
                  b) gambling that it's easier because the woman is less willing to reject

                  Do you still think the former would be sexual assault? I don't have an answer for that, I'm just curious what you think between the two approaches of someone gambling that the other person will say yes, and someone gambling that the other person can't say no. I think there might be a difference in their intentions.

                  Regarding Trump's intention, that's something we can only guess from his quote. I'm taking into account the context and the fact that he told a story in that same video where he tries to woo the woman by taking her furniture shopping. It goes against his story that he simply kisses women without their consent. The fact that he's bragging to other guys tells me he's exaggerating for comedic effect.

                  Again, it could be something indicative of sexual assault. But it could also be nothing.

                  PS: Ross is also my favourite character. He's the best (Chandler might be a close second). Does your circle of friends not like Ross???

                  1. Aime F profile image84
                    Aime Fposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    And thank you for your thoughtful response as well. 

                    I suppose I struggle a bit with needing to be super clear about non-consent because I'm someone who will engage in a conversation and be nice to people if they approach me.  I don't feel that I should need to preface every conversation with the opposite sex with "I'm going to talk to you and I'll be friendly and welcoming and I'll probably smile and take interest in what you're saying but I do NOT want to sleep with you and please don't touch me."  In my mind there should be a virtually unmistakable cue for consent in order to initiate any intimacy.  Being friendly or kind does not equal consent and while I've had people call me flirty or say they thought I might be interested because I am friendly, every "normal" guy has either asked me if I'd be interested in doing something or showed a less intimate form of affection initially (like grabbing my hand) to feel it out.  In Trump's case, kissing/grabbing someone's genitals is a VERY big leap to take and I'd hope he was 10000% sure there was consent before doing that instead of assuming based off presumably not a lot.  (And I presume because he said "I don't even wait.")

                    I guess while you're saying "non-consent has to be crystal clear" I'm saying that consent should be crystal clear before you even get to that point.

                    I agree and understand that men are not mind-readers and with my experiences I have always given them the benefit of the doubt and not assumed that they were knowingly putting me in a weird position, but as I said, I'd change my tune if I heard them saying what Trump was saying.  I know people are questioning the timing of the accusations but I do wonder if like me they had been shrugging it off as a misunderstanding until they heard him saying those things and took it, as I would, to mean that he understands he has power and can get away with being aggressive because women are aware of his power and more hesitant to push him away.  That would make it hard for me to write it off as a misunderstanding and as I said before I'd probably feel like it was more of a violation than I had previously.

                    As for it not being the guys' fault in my situation, as I said I've given them the benefit of the doubt.  One of the situations struck me as being a bit predatory and I actually thought they were joking, one had purposely put me in a position that physically limited me before proposing something, and I don't know what would have happened from there because thankfully someone interrupted us and noted that the guys had literally sandwiched me and told them to give me some room because I looked uncomfortable (and they quickly obliged and left it alone after that which is why I don't assume the worst).  But I'll be honest and say that I have no idea if I would have been able to muster up the courage to say "you're making me uncomfortable" myself with two (much bigger) guys physically touching me on both sides.  Is that my issue?  Maybe.  I just wish I wasn't put in a situation where I felt that way in the first place.

                    Anyway, I also tend to believe people are innocent until proven guilty in most situations but I also feel it's somewhat different when it comes to sexual assault accusations because if you readily assume the man is innocent then you're rejecting the woman's claims.  It's already hard enough for women to speak out without people saying "where's your proof?" when often the proof is just their word.  I'm more inclined to believe women in these cases as we all know that sexual assault and harassment run pretty rampant and false accusations are, in reality, pretty rare.  I understand that the political implications make the accusations against Trump a bit unique and I understand that people are more skeptical of them for that reason but coupled with his questionable comments and the way that he treats women in general, the women get my initial sympathies.

                    I think gambling that someone will say yes as opposed to gambling that they'll say no is not all that different in actuality, because if the person does end up saying no then you've already initiated the unwelcome contact.  Again, I don't really feel like there should be any gambling when it comes to initiating sexual contact.  If you honestly believe that a woman has given you cues to invite sexual contact then that's one thing, but if you're there thinking "I don't really know...." then you should probably either ask or wait for some clearer indication.  I've had guys ask if they could kiss me and I don't find that it kills the mood at all.  And if ever I was the one making the first move I was pretty clear with my intentions because I expected the same in return. 

                    PS.  Only my two best friends like Ross (probably why they're my best friends) and most everyone else I've talked to thinks he's the worst character (which is ridiculous because obviously that's Phoebe).

                    PPS. I love Key & Peele also, maybe you and I would get along just fine despite our vastly different political views (oops, just saw you like Creed - friends off.  Oh well, was fun while it lasted. wink)

                2. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry that happened to you. This is exactly why the California senate enacted a Bill to define what consent means in relation to sexual activity on college campuses. The Bill (SB-967) says:

                  '"Affirmative consent" means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.'(1)

                  So there is no burden for someone on the receiving end of a sexual advance to indicate lack of consent. The burden is on the person making the advance to obtain an indication of consent. If there is no such indication, there is no consent. Simple.

                  As your experiences and the experiences of others shows, there are lots of different reasons people don't say "no", or resist such advances. That doesn't mean they want it to happen. California, and some other states, at least are trying to ensure people who have experienced sexual assault are not blamed (and shamed) for not saying "no", and instead the responsibility is placed on the perpetrators of such behaviour. The difficulty is trying to get people to understand what consent really means.

                  (1) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face … 20140SB967

                  1. Aime F profile image84
                    Aime Fposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Thank you. smile

                    And yes, we are complex and situations can be complex and it's not always as easy as you'd think to say what you're feeling in that moment.

  11. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/14502748_921721921306244_8373491858046477086_n.jpg?oh=90566bcf8304836d5a322504c55133b2&oe=58952B9C

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Okay, a serious issue aside from whether you believe the accusations in this situation or not:

      PLEASE can people stop implying that waiting years to come forward about sexual assault is a reason to not believe them?  Many, many, many people don't come forward for a very long time.  Many people come forward only after someone else does/something comes up that supports their accusations.  Because especially when it comes to rich, successful white dudes, people tend not to believe a woman.

      1. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        There are many circumstances where women wait a long time before they speak out. Bill Cosby's accusers, for example, waited a long time before making the accusations about what he did and there was a ton of evidence stacked against him. 
        The key word is EVIDENCE!

        Then there's this...
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuxrG5JWcAE8wkC.jpg:large

        As for your "rich white men" comment, you can peddle the white guilt propaganda to somebody else cause it's a bunch of BS.

  12. RJ Schwartz profile image93
    RJ Schwartzposted 6 weeks ago

    All I'm reading today are stories of "selective outrage" which mysteriously omit any misdeeds by Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or any other Democrat.  Kind of takes the wind out of the argument doesn't it?

  13. 60
    sabih ul hassanposted 6 weeks ago

    RJ Schwartz profile image
    RJ Schwartz 2 hours ago:
    All I'm reading today are stories of "selective outrage" which mysteriously omit

  14. 60
    sabih ul hassanposted 6 weeks ago

    helray is best

  15. Annis Denise LeDu profile image60
    Annis Denise LeDuposted 6 weeks ago

    My vote is for Trump, simply because I don't dream like Hillary, that one dsy we have open boarders, it just will not work. She has had enough years in office to make a difference, she hasn't. The democratic party keeps people down, especially the ones that are down because they are strictly supported by our government. We need more businesses, jow can we raise minimum wage when most businesses have half of their staff working pat-time. Our boarders are a disaster, out of control, our country is shrinking. I could go on and on. Washington needs shaking up! I believe Donld Trup can bring them out of their trance. Just a few reasons for Trump!

    1. ahorseback profile image51
      ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  16. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago

    Trey Goudy said ;   " .....Everyone in the U.S. State Dept ., everybody in the federal government , is  constantly lectured and lectured and lectured on how to use government servers , how to keep private on them and  how you MUST NEVER  use private servers and emails ,  ....."     

    What people aren't saying is ;" Hilary hasn't  YET been found guilty" ,

    How could she be with a politically and ideologically  supporting White House , an ideologically  supporting director of the FBI , an ideologically supporting mass media ?

  17. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 6 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14724483_569088956620441_7319372959221735670_n.jpg?oh=3c4e71b94a3b99df9f662477e984445a&oe=58AB7BB6

    1. ahorseback profile image51
      ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      Love it !

 
working