Hollywood Actor Tweets The President Should Die

[Guest]

Just now, kimmy said:

If he grabs her genitals without consent, that's a criminal act. No further comment needed. If she declines to make a complaint, that's up to her.

 -k

Not if she lets him do it.  That's what they do, according to the quote.  They let him do it. 

I don't know why.  I wouldn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not if she lets him do it.  That's what they do, according to the quote.  They let him do it. 

I don't know why.  I wouldn't.

 

Same reasons they let Governor and President Bill Clinton do it.

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Same reasons they let Governor and President Bill Clinton do it.

Didn't know Clinton groped women just because he could.   Thought his seductions relied solely on the power/money/fame ambiance.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Didn't know Clinton groped women just because he could.   Thought his seductions relied solely on the power/money/fame ambiance.

I suppose that's why he could. 

[bush_cheney2004]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Didn't know Clinton groped women just because he could.   Thought his seductions relied solely on the power/money/fame ambiance.

 

Women get to make their own choices...some chose to like it.   Some chose to vote for Clinton...and Trump... anyway.

[kimmy]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Not if she lets him do it.  That's what they do, according to the quote.  They let him do it. 

I don't know why.  I wouldn't.

So describe this for me. What would "not letting him do it" look like?

Watch out for tiny orange hands grasping at their privates and dodge or block to prevent this from happening?

Wear a jock-strap, chastity belt, codpiece, or some other piece of protective equipment?

Stay an arm's length-- einarmlaenge-- to protect themselves from sexual groping, as the Mayor of Cologne recommended 1 year ago after a thousand or so migrants assumed, as Mr Trump does, that women welcome being grabbed by the genitals?

 -k

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

So describe this for me. What would "not letting him do it" look like?

Watch out for tiny orange hands grasping at their privates and dodge or block to prevent this from happening?

Wear a jock-strap, chastity belt, codpiece, or some other piece of protective equipment?

Stay an arm's length-- einarmlaenge-- to protect themselves from sexual groping, as the Mayor of Cologne recommended 1 year ago after a thousand or so migrants assumed, as Mr Trump does, that women welcome being grabbed by the genitals?

 -k

Beats me.  I don't even know what letting him do it looks like.

I only know this:  If someone lets you do it, it's not assault.

If my arm was twisted, and I absolutely had to come up with a scenario, I would say that, given time is an arrow, at some point on that line an objection is made, beyond which further action towards the same goal is construed as assault.  But I have no high speed camera available at all times.   So I default to, if someone lets you do it, it's okay.

[WestCoastRunner]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Beats me.  I don't even know what letting him do it looks like.

I only know this:  If someone lets you do it, it's not assault.

If my arm was twisted, and I absolutely had to come up with a scenario, I would say that, given time is an arrow, at some point on that line an objection is made, beyond which further action towards the same goal is construed as assault.  But I have no high speed camera available at all times.   So I default to, if someone lets you do it, it's okay.

What you are doing is rationalizing or normalizing sexual assault in the guise of clever debate. It's not working for those of us who stand up to predators. 

[kimmy]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Beats me.  I don't even know what letting him do it looks like.

I only know this:  If someone lets you do it, it's not assault.

If my arm was twisted, and I absolutely had to come up with a scenario, I would say that, given time is an arrow, at some point on that line an objection is made, beyond which further action towards the same goal is construed as assault.  But I have no high speed camera available at all times.   So I default to, if someone lets you do it, it's okay.

And you're wrong, and you keep being wrong.  You can't go around grabbing people's genitals without consent. 

If a guy walks up to a woman and grabs her genitals, that's a sexual assault, period.

It doesn't matter if it's Donald Trump or a North African migrant doing the grabbing.

It doesn't matter if she screams for help afterward or demands that he stop afterward, or calls the police later on. Or does nothing at all. It's still a crime.

 

Perhaps in some places "She let me" might mean "she didn't stop me", but in Canada and the United states "She let me" means "she gave express consent to sexual contact."

The crime occurs when he grabs the genitals prior to obtaining consent. It's not a crime if he obtains the consent prior to grabbing the genitals.

I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.

 -k

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

What you are doing is rationalizing or normalizing sexual assault in the guise of clever debate. It's not working for those of us who stand up to predators. 

No I'm not.  I'm saying that if someone lets you do it, they let you do it.  I don't see what's so clever about that. It's actually pretty basic.  It bothers you that some might, that's all.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, kimmy said:

And you're wrong, and you keep being wrong.  You can't go around grabbing people's genitals without consent. 

If a guy walks up to a woman and grabs her genitals, that's a sexual assault, period.

It doesn't matter if it's Donald Trump or a North African migrant doing the grabbing.

It doesn't matter if she screams for help afterward or demands that he stop afterward, or calls the police later on. Or does nothing at all. It's still a crime.

 

Perhaps in some places "She let me" might mean "she didn't stop me", but in Canada and the United states "She let me" means "she gave express consent to sexual contact."

The crime occurs when he grabs the genitals prior to obtaining consent. It's not a crime if he obtains the consent prior to grabbing the genitals.

I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.

 -k

Of course you can't. It goes without saying. Only if they let you.  Then you can.  

[kimmy]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Of course you can't. It goes without saying. Only if they let you.  Then you can.  

And as I've pointed out numerous times already, Trump's statement makes clear that he doesn't think he needs to ask consent, because he's a big star.

And that's why by his own description he's a sex predator.

 -k

[Guest]

Just now, kimmy said:

And as I've pointed out numerous times already, Trump's statement makes clear that he doesn't think he needs to ask consent, because he's a big star.

And that's why by his own description he's a sex predator.

 -k

It doesn't matter what you point out. If someone lets you do it, they let you do it. What you are is irrelevant.  

It really is that basic. It is not complicated. 

The problem is that any women who actually does that is offensive to you, so their choice in the matter is no longer valid.  You actually give Trump power. 

 

 

[kimmy]

Just now, bcsapper said:

If someone lets you do it, they let you do it.

Our definition of "they let you do it" is that they gave you explicit permission to proceed. Trump's statement makes clear that he doesn't ask, he just starts kissing or grabs whatever he wants.

He might think they implicitly consent to being groped, but that doesn't mean they actually consented.

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The problem is that any women who actually does that is offensive to you, so their choice in the matter is no longer valid.  

No, I really don't care if some woman wants to do hitch her wagon to that guy, for whatever reason. That's her problem.  Worked out ok for Marla Maples, I guess.

What I'm extremely put off by is the entitlement in what he says. "I'm a big star! I can do whatever I want to women! I can kiss them, I can grab their pussies, I don't even ask!"  "I own the pageant! I can walk into the dressing room while the girls are changing!"   "I'll be dating her in 10 years!"  "If she wasn't my daughter, I'd be dating her."  He thinks half the population is just here on this earth as a smorgasbord for his entertainment.

 -k

 

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Our definition of "they let you do it" is that they gave you explicit permission to proceed. Trump's statement makes clear that he doesn't ask, he just starts kissing or grabs whatever he wants.

He might think they implicitly consent to being groped, but that doesn't mean they actually consented.

No, I really don't care if some woman wants to do hitch her wagon to that guy, for whatever reason. That's her problem.  Worked out ok for Marla Maples, I guess.

What I'm extremely put off by is the entitlement in what he says. "I'm a big star! I can do whatever I want to women! I can kiss them, I can grab their pussies, I don't even ask!"  "I own the pageant! I can walk into the dressing room while the girls are changing!"   "I'll be dating her in 10 years!"  "If she wasn't my daughter, I'd be dating her."  He thinks half the population is just here on this earth as a smorgasbord for his entertainment.

 -k

 

 

Oh, I don't like the idea of entitlement, either. Lots of people seem entitled though, so given my time for sleep is finite, I don't worry too much over it.

Our definitions of "they let you do it" do appear to differ. Do you think that might be where the problem lies?  

Edit> I should clarify. I'm not opposed to entitlements when people are entitled to them. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

...The problem is that any women who actually does that is offensive to you, so their choice in the matter is no longer valid.  You actually give Trump power.

 

Indeed....how dare these women act independently of "feminist" group think and ideology.  

The Trump triggered dears fought fiercely to protect Bill Clinton back in the day.

[WestCoastRunner]

51 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed....how dare these women act independently of "feminist" group think and ideology.  

The Trump triggered dears fought fiercely to protect Bill Clinton back in the day.

Incredibly amazing how Trumps permission to grab pussy has been reduced to feminists acting out. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

 

Our definitions of "they let you do it" do appear to differ. Do you think that might be where the problem lies?  

Indeed.  Your definition of consent appears to rely on what someone does after being assaulted.  FYI,  there is no legal defense of "She let me after I grabbed her".   Even if the women did go along with it, legally Trump's position of power could be deemed coercion and the physical touching assault.   

12 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Incredibly amazing how Trumps permission to grab pussy has been reduced to feminists acting out. 

No doubt its the Penis Effect:  those who possess a penis shall not be held accountable for their inappropriate or illegal sexual behavior.  

Edited January 1, 2017 by dialamah

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Indeed.  Your definition of consent appears to rely on what someone does after being assaulted.  FYI,  there is no legal defense of "She let me after I grabbed her".   Even if the women did go along with it, legally Trump's position of power could be deemed coercion and the physical touching assault.   

No doubt its the Penis Effect:  those who possess a penis shall not be held accountable for their inappropriate or illegal sexual behavior.  

You're letting your rage get the better of you.  No one said anything about after anything.  Or penises.  

Like others, you seem to be bothered by choices you don't approve of. 

[bush_cheney2004]

48 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Incredibly amazing how Trumps permission to grab pussy has been reduced to feminists acting out. 

 

Trump can say whatever he wants about "grabbing pussy"...at anytime....to anybody....it is his constitutional right in the United States to do so, just like "feminists" attacking Bill Clinton's actual assault victims.

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[dialamah]

48 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You're letting your rage get the better of you.  No one said anything about after anything.  Or penises.  

Like others, you seem to be bothered by choices you don't approve of. 

You've said several times that if a woman 'goes along with' being groped, its not assault.  In fact you are wrong.  What happens afterward is irrelevant to the initial act of assault. 

I think if a woman decides to get what she wants from a guy after he assaults her, she's entitled to do so.   The more she gets, the better.   Its quid pro quo as far as I'm concerned.

But that doesn't make the initial assault any less an assault.  When a man reaches out and touches a woman sexually because he thinks he's entitled, thats on him.  The nature of his act does not change depending on how she reacts; her choice of response only changes his consequences.   

You have made the assertion that I don't approve of choices some other women might make after being groped.  That is such a stupid, weak and 'male' accusation that I must assume your penis-based entitlement syndrome has kicked in.  Don't worry; this is shared by many males, incuding date-rape artists, random jerks who use GHB as a romance enhancer and teenage boys who rape their drunk schoolmates.  

Edited January 1, 2017 by dialamah

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You've said several times that if a woman 'goes along with' being groped, its not assault.  In fact you are wrong.  What happens afterward is irrelevant to the initial act of assault. 

I think if a woman decides to get what she wants from a guy after he assaults her, she's entitled to do so.   The more she gets, the better.   Its quid pro quo as far as I'm concerned.

But that doesn't make the initial assault any less an assault.  When a man reaches out and touches a woman sexually because he thinks he's entitled, thats on him.  The nature of his act does not change depending on how she reacts; her choice of response only changes his consequences.   

You have made the assertion that I don't approve of choices some other women might make after being groped.  That is such a stupid, weak and 'male' accusation that I must assume your penis-based entitlement syndrome has kicked in.  Don't worry; this is shared by many males, incuding date-rape artists, random jerks who use GHB as a romance enhancer and teenage boys who rape their drunk schoolmates.  

If someone lets you do something, they let you do it.  If someone lets DT do something, they let him do it.

It bothers you so much that some of your sisters might let such a repulsive penis do something to them that you have to blame all penises for it.

Where's a good psychiatrist when you need one?

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It bothers you so much that some of your sisters might let such a repulsive penis do something to them that you have to blame all penises for it.

It bothers me when anyone validates, justifies or excuses that kind of behavior.    If a man touches a woman sexually, without her consent, that's wrong and its legally sexually assault.   If a woman touches a man sexually, without his consent thats wrong and legally sexual assault.  

You and Cheney decided to characterize me as some feminist angry at other women; I see no reason to characterize you as anything other than an oppressive, misogynistic entitled dick.  

Edited January 1, 2017 by dialamah

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It bothers me when anyone validates, justifies or excuses that kind of behavior.    If a man touches a woman sexually, without her consent, that's wrong and its legally sexually assault.   If a woman touches a man sexually, without his consent thats wrong and legally sexual assault.  

 

I will always validate, justify, and excuse free speech rights in the United States.   That includes Hollywood "stars" and presidential candidates.

[dialamah]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I will always validate, justify, and excuse free speech rights in the United States.   That includes Hollywood "stars" and presidential candidates.

Of course.  Any kind of reprehensible behavior by an American is fine with you, ethics and standards be damned.