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.
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
These are the top stories / articles ahh heck msm propaganda campaign.
No top stories on the cherubs from arkansas.
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!"
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????
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?
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.
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.
Spot on from Don W. Fifty point to Gryffindor.
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.
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 .
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?
Is the argument your guy is worse than my guy? They are both worse than each other. This election is a hoax.
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 !
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.
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.
Clinton sex assaults and Hilary support -proven , Trump sex assaults accusations.
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?
1995 Clinton vs Jones, Jones won over $800,000 in sexual harassment suit.
Lewinsky scandal: Bill Clinton got impeached for lying and was disbarred from practicing law.
* http://www.breitbart.com/live/second-pr … peachment/
Mena, Clintons, Contras and Cocaine?
Taxpayers money maybe? Werent they so broke hillary was carting off WH furnishings?
The Clintons were taking $200,000 per year for Bill as president. Hillary said they were struggling? They bought a $1.7 million mansion in Chappaqua, NY. Then, they bought a $2.85 million mansion on Embassy Row in Washington D.C. Whenever Hillary opens her mouth...well, its pathological.
They stole $200,000 in furniture, china, and art that they had to return to the White House, which is like a museum so everything is categorized and recorded.
But, that's small potatoes in comparisons to many other deeds by the Clintons, and especially Hillary.
She didn't "win" the lawsuit, they settled out of court. No proof was needed as no verdict in the sexual harassment case was needed.
And he lied about his consensual relationship with Lewinsky.
Two negatives cannot make a positive in either case. If we start choosing to "believe" rather than know we are just kidding ourselves.
Yes, who would be WORSE, once in office?
Some (conservative types) say let Hillary get it, and balance her by electing lots of Republicans.
Trump implied that they welcomed his advances.
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/
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.
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
You tell me !
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.
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).
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!
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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?
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 !
Does that justify putting someone who is racist and sexist in the whitehouse? Nope. It doesn't.
Are you talking about Hilary in that way !
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.
That is the picture you paint, but as to whether it is accurate or not is a matter of opinion...
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.
"The issue of using a personal server for emails can be fixed with a technical solution.
Being sexist and racist cannot."
Don W - You nailed it. Not that it will make an iota of difference to those who disagree with you. But you nailed it. This quote should be on a bumper sticker.
"The issue of using a personal server for emails can be fixed with a technical solution. "
Very true - taking away any security clearance would be a start. But the attitude behind that illegal use (laws of the peons do not apply to me) cannot, now can it? Between a president making sexist remarks and one broadcasting classified information to the world I know which one is worse. Do you?
I cant vote for someone with racist and sexist attitudes, so it is more than just 'comments'. It may be just incedental to you, but there is a whole swath of the electorate that are put off by this. So, the entire United States government is scheming to protect Clinton from prosecution? That is no more credible than the Right's consistent whining about a biased liberal media to excuse Trump's behavior and statements.
If Bill Clinton had done the right thing and stepped aside from his public sexism, then we'd probably not be seeing this now.
I hear you, RJ
Would Bill Clinton have been elected if his womanizing were made public during the campaign, the way it is for Trump now? I doubt it?
Trump makes mistakes tying the record of Bill Clinton to that of her spouse who is running for the office. We are focusing on Trump and his record, BCis not in the running. GOP operatives have warned Trump that this approach will most likely backfire, he should heed those words.
That is an extremely shallow statement and belief system . Of course it matters that Bill is Hilary in this election , to normal voters anyway !
Bill Clinton is not running for office. I think that my point is profound enough. Who said that you are a normal voter? The 'normal' voters are the ones thatare going give Clinton her margin of victory.
Anyone , especially a woman , that can separate Bill from Hilary in the crimes in the White House and Congress , impeaching's , disbarring's ,lawsuits and settlements of sexual white-house escapades , as if one had nothing to do with the other is morally questionable to begin with and should disqualify themselves from voting , for the good of the country..
'Anyone , especially a woman , that can separate Bill from Hilary in the crimes in the White House and Congress , impeaching's , disbarring's ,lawsuits and settlements of sexual white-house escapades , as if one had nothing to do with the other is morally questionable to begin with and should disqualify themselves from voting , for the good of the country.'
Regardless of your opinion, we both know that that is not going to happen. I, for one, will evaluate HC based on her own record not that of her husband's term. No more than I would have made assumptions about GW Bush based on the tenure of his father.
Well damn! What is the modern form of dueling? A face slap with your earbuds, or spitting on your cell screen, or ...?
I think we are fairly familiar with each other's postings and positions. You have formed an opinion of me, and I have formed one of you.
But mine doesn't include the arrogance that anyone that doesn't see things the way I do is morally questionable and unqualified to vote. *at least not automatically
I can separate the two, and think I am a moral intelligent voter. I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, if this was the first inaccurate claim you have made, but, no.
The technical solution is: don't use a private email server.
What you're saying about Clinton's attitude towards doing something illegal is just speculation. Clinton has not been found guilty of breaking any law.
I don't know any solution to Trump being sexist and racist (which includes behaviour as well as comments). I just know that someone who is known to be sexist and racist should not be president.
"Clinton has not been found guilty of breaking any law. "
And therein lies the difference between us. You know she violated security laws - the FBI said so. You know she lied to congress, which is illegal. You know she stole from the whitehouse, which is illegal. You know she erased emails that are required to be kept in perpetuity - the FBI said so.
And yet she violated no law, presumably because she is Hillary Clinton and the laws don't apply to her. You're as bad as she is! You know she broke laws - several of them - yet claim there are no laws broken. It's truly fascinating, this denial of reality in favor of a political stance.
I know Clinton broke the rules, not the law.
I know the Director of the FBI said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.
I know the Department of Justice agreed.
I know FBI investigators and Department of Justice attorneys are the most appropriately qualified people to make that decision.
I know 5 minutes on a fact-checking site will show your claim that Clinton stole from the whitehouse is false.
You know Donald Trump is sexist.
You know Donald Trump is racist.
You know someone who is sexist and racist should not be president.
You might want to go clear back to #1, for it is most certainly the law that confidential information must go on secured servers. It is also the law that all official emails must be kept for posterity. These are not some rules made up by Hillary's boss, they are the law.
Who do you think returned the furniture, silverware and artwork that was stolen when Clinton left the White House? Mrs. Reagan? Who do you think paid for taking what wasn't hers? Mrs. Bush? (Hint: the answer to both begins with an H.C.)
Only a court of law can determine if someone is guilty of breaking the law, not Donald Trump and not you.
If Clinton is guilty of breaking the law based on you and Trump saying she is, then by the same standard, Trump is guilty of committing sexual assault based on his accusers saying he is.
Like I said, Clinton broke the rules. She's not guilty of breaking any law.
And again, 5 minutes on a fact-checking site will show your claim that Clinton stole from the whitehouse is false.
You can keep rationalizing, and spinning, and deflecting as much as you want Wilderness, but it always comes back to one question: should someone who is widely known to be sexist and racist be president? I believe the answer to that question is no.
The sad thing is those arguing in defense of Hillary are going by personality, not policy. They don't like Trump, personally, so would vote for anyone, but Trump. To heck with the economy, charge closer to war, to heck with national security because they wouldn't claim trump as a friend. It's quite bizarre, really.
The economy? That's a joke right. The only GOP president to have job growth in the last sixty years is Reagan. Five of the last six Dems have, including Obama. How many times do GOP policies have to be proven wrong for the economy?
The election stopped being about policy when the GOP nominated a candidate widely known to be sexist and racist. Instead of being about whose economic policy makes most sense, the election has now become: should someone who is sexist and racist be president?
And instead of distancing himself from that, Trump, through his words and actions, has associated himself with being sexist and racist even more. That won't impact his current supporters (could anything?!) but it will have an impact on the undecideds.
He's also put his own supporters in a difficult position. By shifting the focus of the election onto whether someone who is sexist and racist should be president, his supporters are now in the position of having to argue that "yes, someone who is sexist and racist should be president". You could call that a hard sell. So the response has understandably been "yeah but look at Clinton", because attacking Clinton is the only way anyone could even try to defend Trump.
So if this were even a half-normal election, economic policy would be relevant. In this election it just isn't. This is now effectively a referendum on the question: should someone who is sexist and racist be president? Hopefully there are enough people in the country who believe the answer to that question is no, but I'm not counting any chickens before they are hatched. We live in strange times..
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.
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 !
"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.
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.
VP Creepy Joe Biden Caught Groping Young Girls On Camera
Very unbecoming of a Vice President in the White House.
"I gave Obama a Blow Job While he was Smoking Crack"
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.
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.
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
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.
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 .
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 !
"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.
Maybe we should erect some boundaries:
No dredging up the past.
No character assassinations.
Stick to the issues.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
All of which were determined to be false. No jail time, no payout, nothing. Hillary on the other hand has a lengthy body count.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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/
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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).
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/
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.
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
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???
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. )
If you want a virtually unmistakable cue for consent, then you'd want to live in a world where all sexual interactions are like the Concordia video I linked earlier, with clear yes and no responses. But as I've demonstrated earlier, those interactions are not the norm. Most people interact with nongrammatical cues that aren't always clear and can be misinterpreted.
If you were to apply an approach of consent being virtually unmistakable before initializing the interaction, how many people would fail that test? To illustrate this more clearly, I've gathered some examples, both in media and in real life, of people kissing and hugging:
Can you define the precise moment the receiving party virtually unmistakably consented for a kiss in each of the above videos, and your reason for that determination?
Rachel, for instance, is simply standing at the door with arms slightly wide. Is that enough for consent?
Casillas' girlfriend is standing normally, happy that Casillas won but trying to do an interview professionally. She had no idea he'd grab her and kiss her. At what moment did she consent for the impromptu kiss?
In Jurassic World Claire was standing, breathing heavily and full of adrenaline (from fighting dinosaurs). Is that enough for consent?
The Twilight kiss, Edward says "I just want to try one thing. Stay very still." She gave no indication of verbal consent and she is just sitting still. Without the context of the story this could have been a situation where she "let" him kiss her because she was afraid/overpowered by a vampire with superhuman strength and speed. Is that consent?
Obama's kiss. His wife is simply sitting there with a smile on her face. Is a smile enough for consent?
From what I can tell, all of the above situations can be consensual, but are not virtually unmistakable indications of consent. The women receiving these kisses could quite easily have not wanted any part in the kissing. They could have been acting as you were; friendly, smiling and welcoming, but not having interest in anything further.
What becomes dangerous is to criminalize the lack of affirmative consent. All of the above videos could then be taken as examples of sexual assault because there is no indication of crystal clear or virtually unmistakable consent. You can imagine that if one of these women were to have a falling out with their partner, they could later accuse them of sexual assault under these laws. But you don't have to imagine that because that's exactly what happened to Paul Nungesser. You can read about his ordeal here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … e-her.html
If you establish consent only on crystal clear affirmations (i.e. "yes") then all of the nonverbal communicating and nonverbal consent that are regular occurrences in these interactions gets thrown out the window. They don't matter because they aren't clear indications of consent. Under such laws, most people would be guilty of sexual assault.
I understand that you want to believe these women when they speak out, but that's not a fair and just approach for the simple reason that women can lie, just like men. I'm not saying I reject the woman's claims or that my default position is that they're lying. They could be truthful, or they could not. We simply don't have a way of knowing. I'm saying they aren't sufficient to prove guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
That being said, your justice system doesn't care about proving innocence. It cares about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus has high standards for that determination. That comes with a price; many guilty criminals get away with their crimes because there isn't enough evidence to convict them (the client Hillary defended in the rape case is likely one such person). But it'd be much worse to jail an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit. Like Brian Banks, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football)
If we were to take all accusations from women (or men) at their word, we'd get some guilty people in prison, but also some perfectly innocent people. I'm not willing to pay that price. Are you?
PS: I suggest you get some better Friends because Ross is objectively the best character. I also agree that Phoebe is the worst character, but I have a soft-spot for her. It helps that Lisa Kudrow is smart and witty in real life.
PPS: Do you actually know my political views? They're more aligned with Jill Stein and Hillary (or at least, what Hillary says in public). My defense of Trump (in this case) is a defense based on the legal principles of your country, which I value as some of the best ethical frameworks mankind has been able to develop. Under that framework I wouldn't want any individual's rights to be trodden on, even someone as disgusting as Trump.
(That's harsh dude... Creed was like five years ago... and I only liked a few songs!)
I'm thinking more along the lines of consent between people who don't already have some kind of existing relationship. I think once a mutual attraction has been established and some kind of intimate relationship is already taking place then reading the cues becomes easier and when someone misreads cues it's not (in most cases) as offensive or upsetting.
Taking into consideration the Trump accusations, women who barely knew him saying that he kissed them (and again he said those words himself - when talking about the lady in the purple dress - "in case I just start kissing her"). You can take that as "locker room banter" if you'd like but I think it's what spurred this conversation about consent in the first place so I'm taking it at face value.
So yeah, I kind of do think that if no relationship between two people exists and you don't know the person very well that you should be 100% sure that there's consent before kissing or touching them. It doesn't have to be super formal and clunky like "may I please insert my ______ into your _____?" You could totally make it sexy. I also believe there are crystal clear non-verbal cues that don't involve touching someone else but I'm keeping it PG.
I'm also not suggesting that we throw every man accused of sexual assault in jail but that we take women seriously and don't dismiss this "locker room talk" because it has some nasty and very real implications. As we can probably tell by this conversation the definition of "sexual assault" is not clearly understood the same way by everyone so I don't think it's that simple, ultimately, but with the alarmingly high rates of sexual assault/harassment I think it's important to support women (and men) who come forward. Does believing the accuser mean it will hold up in a court of law? Does it mean that it should? No, but it hopefully means that people won't be so afraid to speak up and that in itself has potential to ignite change.
(I don't dislike Phoebe at all and she arguably brought the best supporting characters into the show [especially Mike, Gary, Frank Jr.] but compared to the rest she fell a little flat.)
(You're right, perhaps "political views" was the wrong umbrella term to use. Also, my country is your country unless your profile is a lie and you are not actually a dog from Canada.)
I'm assuming that you were also unable to pinpoint a clear and virtually unmistakable cue of consent in the videos I posted earlier? How would you enforce a law that demands a clear and virtually unmistakable cue of consent?
The law would not distinguish between people who just met and people who have had a previous relationship, because it's entirely possible for sexual assault and rape (and other situations where there was a lack of consent) to happen to people who knew one another and were in an intimate relationship - in fact, it's one of the most common types of sexual assault and rape. Consent is just as important between people who are intimate and people who've barely met. As I've already demonstrated with Nungesser, there can be people who are intimate, have a relationship and a friendship and maintain that for months after the event, but whose consent can be violated (sexual assault) or revoked after-the-fact (not sexual assault, which is what likely happened with Nungesser).
Conversely, it's also entirely possible for people who've just met to consent to these interactions. Even taking Trump literally, it's possible that his interactions were entirely consensual. For us to understand his statements as sexual assault, we have to interpret them in the worst possible way:
I don't even wait = I don't even wait [to meet them || for their consent]
they let you = they let you [because they're afraid/overpowered/frozen]
This is unlikely even for someone as piggish as Trump to admit to sexual assault in a bragging manner to other men. As a whole, men consider rape and sexual assault some of the most deplorable crimes in existence. Even among criminals, their code of honor puts rapists (especially child rapists, but generally speaking as well) as the scum of the earth. I'm sure you've heard some stories of prison inmates doing horrific things to these rapists.
If you can't pinpoint a clear and virtually unmistakable cue of consent in the above videos, then you'd want to enforce either the Concordia model, or your crystal clear non-PG nonverbal cue of consent (a gesture of "come hither"? That's all I can think of). Most people do not use cues in that manner, so most people would be found violating the law. That's a dangerous precedent to set.
(My mistake. I should have known that a hockey-loving girl who drinks beer must be from Canada.)
I understand what you're saying on strictly "this is what the law says" level though I suppose what I'm saying is that I think context is important in most cases, at least in terms of how likely a woman is to feel violated by an action and call upon the law for protection.
Ross/Rachel kiss: These two had already been clear about having feelings for each other at several points. Imagine if Ross in this video was a stranger who Rachel opened the door for not knowing what he wanted and he grabbed her and kissed her (and then maybe later said "I saw a beautiful woman and I just started kissing her.")
I think that the law is very specific to protect people who are in circumstances that are not as simple as "you should have just said no" though I see the potential to have people accused of something when the context or intent was not malicious. However, I'm not sure what the happy-medium would be as if you take out the very specific definitions of consent then you risk people not being taken seriously or having no grounds to make a claim. Do you have a suggestion that would protect everyone equally?
I agree entirely about context. That's what I've been arguing from the beginning. We are lacking the entire context of Trump's encounter with these women. I cannot derive the context from a 10 second audio clip of him just like you cannot derive the context of Rachel and Ross from a 10 second video of them standing at the door. We needed the additional information (of them admitting past feelings for one another) to better understand. That took two seasons of watching their lives to develop and understand. We don't typically have that information in real life, and we don't have that information with Trump's case.
Even then, two people having had feelings in the past is not an indication that they still have those feelings. If all we have is a video of Ross kissing Rachel at the doorstep, she could claim sexual assault if she wanted to. She could say she thought she had feelings for him and that she knew him but she felt threatened and scared which is why she let him in and did not protest. Again, the courts do not necessarily have all of the contextual evidence available, and are unlikely to have such evidence at their disposal. Again, this is what happened to Nungessen, and he was dragged through kangaroo courts and de facto considered guilty until he provided exculpatory evidence i.e. the context of their relationship. He is fortunate that he kept their Facebook and text messages, otherwise how could he prove the consensual context of their relationship?
I never meant to suggest that the legal solution is to tell the supposed victim "you should have just said no." That's the practical solution that can help you utilize legal recourse. Once you establish clear lack of consent, anything that goes further than that will be much better poised to be seen as sexual assault.
The two solutions - establishing lack of consent, and establishing consent affirmatively, are two halves of the same coin. The distinction is whether you find it possible to establish virtually unmistakable affirmative consent in the majority of these interactions, and whether you find it possible to establish virtually unmistakable lack of consent in the majority of these interactions. I have yet to see any evidence of the former outside of the unrealistic Concordia model (which most people do not follow because again, most communication is nongrammatical). On the other hand, establishing lack of consent is unmistakable and clear.
I don't know of a solution that can protect everyone equally, and I don't know if there is one. I do know that using affirmative consent as a requirement would make most people guilty of sexual assault. That is far more unbalanced than my (imperfect) solution.
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
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.
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...
As for your "rich white men" comment, you can peddle the white guilt propaganda to somebody else cause it's a bunch of BS.
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?
RJ Schwartz profile image
RJ Schwartz 2 hours ago:
All I'm reading today are stories of "selective outrage" which mysteriously omit
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!
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 ?
by IslandBites10 hours ago
by Sychophantastic3 weeks ago
But most of you already knew this. However, given the level of enthusiasm for Donald Trump at Hubpages, I thought this worth pointing out. This has never happened in modern presidential...
by Susie Lehto22 hours ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/...
by Catherine Mostly7 months ago
I am really curious about what other women think; because I've only recently started paying attention to politics since the media is ramping up Trump so much, lately. Before that, I'm sorry... I was not even SORT of...
by Alternative Prime5 weeks ago
An Unconventional Pseudo-Candidate who Exhibits Clear Signs of Mental ILLNESS DESERVEs Unconventional "MEDIA Blocking" Consequences ~ Just like Cadillac “Discontinued” Sponsorship of...
by Mike Russo6 days ago
Trump is not your normal candidate nor is he running a normal campaign. I know the word normal is relative, but in the world of campaigns, it is based on previous campaigns that had some sense of being normal with...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.