Hollywood Actor Tweets The President Should Die

[Guest]

This argument reminds me of the Burka argument.  We all know what wearing a Burka means, but if a women says she chooses to wear one, who are we to tell her she can't?  Even though we know better.

If a women wants to let Trump do something to her, who are we to tell her she can't?  Even though we know better.

[kimmy]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

  If he had said they weren't okay with it, but he did it anyway, we wouldn't be having this argument.

 

That they're ok with it is entirely an assumption on his part. That they want to be molested by him is entirely his assumption. He assumes they're ok with this behavior because he always gets away with it. It's more than likely that some or more of the women Trump molested were not "OK" with it at all, and didn't take action against him because they feared for their careers or feared getting sued by the lawsuit-happy sex predator.

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

No,  you're taking this in a different direction, because I was just talking about one thing, and that was what he said.  Any woman who is not okay with it, does not apply as far as DT's quote goes. 

Ghomeshi, just like Trump, just assumed that he was entitled to act the way he did, because he was a big star. And just like Trump, Ghomeshi always got away with it. It's the same story.

 -k

[Guest]

Just now, kimmy said:

That they're ok with it is entirely an assumption on his part. That they want to be molested by him is entirely his assumption. He assumes they're ok with this behavior because he always gets away with it. It's more than likely that some or more of the women Trump molested were not "OK" with it at all, and didn't take action against him because they feared for their careers or feared getting sued by the lawsuit-happy sex predator.

Ghomeshi, just like Trump, just assumed that he was entitled to act the way he did, because he was a big star. And just like Trump, Ghomeshi always got away with it. It's the same story.

 -k

Sure, but that's another argument.  If they are not okay with it, they are not.

If they feared for their careers is very different from if they saw advancement in their careers, and like I said, I'm not ascribing motive. 

Gomeshi didn't get away with it.  He was tried and found not guilty.  If Trump is tried for any of the actions that caused women to come forward and denounce him, then we'll see what happens there.  Not relevant to my contention regarding his quote, though.

[kimmy]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, but that's another argument.  If they are not okay with it, they are not.

If they feared for their careers is very different from if they saw advancement in their careers, and like I said, I'm not ascribing motive.

The whole idea that "they're okay with it" is entirely an assumption. Trump didn't know if they were actually okay with it or not, he just assumed they were because he assumed all women were available to a big star like himself. 

Women had a variet of reasons to pretend to be OK with being molested by Trump, even if they weren't.

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Gomeshi didn't get away with it.  He was tried and found not guilty. 

Ghomeshi got away with it for years. The management at CBC systematically ignored complaints against him and did a sham investigation of allegations.  The CBC only admitted the problem when it came to light after the unrelated sex assault charges against Ghomeshi were laid. All that the women at CBC ever received from Ghomeshi was a self-serving apology. He absolutely got away with it, because CBC management took the same attitude that you've taken here.

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not relevant to my contention regarding his quote, though.

What we know from Trump's quote is that he thought he was a big star who could grab women by the pussy without asking. Why would you defend a guy like that?

 -k

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, kimmy said:

The whole idea that "they're okay with it" is entirely an assumption. Trump didn't know if they were actually okay with it or not, he just assumed they were because he assumed all women were available to a big star like himself. 

Women had a variet of reasons to pretend to be OK with being molested by Trump, even if they weren't.

Ghomeshi got away with it for years. The management at CBC systematically ignored complaints against him and did a sham investigation of allegations.  The CBC only admitted the problem when it came to light after the unrelated sex assault charges against Ghomeshi were laid. All that the women at CBC ever received from Ghomeshi was a self-serving apology. He absolutely got away with it, because CBC management took the same attitude that you've taken here.

What we know from Trump's quote is that he thought he was a big star who could grab women by the pussy without asking. Why would you defend a guy like that?

 -k

 

No, you're making stuff up.  I knew when I posted originally that might happen, but what the hell, I love arguing.

Gomeshi only got away with it in the same away anyone gets away with anything until they are caught and brought to justice.  Then justice decides.  My attitude has nothing to do with any of the poltroons at the CBC who knew he was doing something wrong but did nothing about it.  My attitude is more like those who did not know he was doing anything wrong and did nothing about it.

I'm not defending the type of person Trump is.  I'm saying that women are allowed to let him do things to them, no matter how abhorrent you find the notion.

Edit> To further clarify: I'm not defending him.  I think he's a complete twat.  I'm on record here as saying so.  I'm saying that doing what you are allowed to do is not sexual assault.

Edited December 31, 2016 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, kimmy said:

What we know from Trump's quote is that he thought he was a big star who could grab women by the pussy without asking. Why would you defend a guy like that?

 

Trump can say whatever the hell he wants to say...he is not in Canada.   Millions of American women still "supported" him by voting for him.

[kimmy]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not defending the type of person Trump is.  I'm saying that women are allowed to let him do things to them, no matter how abhorrent you find the notion.

And I'm saying that grabbing people by the genitals without first obtaining permission is not just abhorrent but also criminal.

 -k

[Guest]

Just now, kimmy said:

And I'm saying that grabbing people by the genitals without first obtaining permission is not just abhorrent but also criminal.

 -k

Sure, and those that didn't let him do it have come forward.  It will be interesting to see what happens there.

But the quote was concerning those who were okay with it. That was what I was talking about.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, kimmy said:

And I'm saying that grabbing people by the genitals without first obtaining permission is not just abhorrent but also criminal.

 

Assaulting breasts in Parliament without obtaining permission is also criminal ?

[kimmy]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

But the quote was concerning those who were okay with it. That was what I was talking about.

The quote was about his assumption that women are inherently ok with it because he's a big star. Your inability to comprehend the difference between the two things is extremely disappointing.

 -k

[Guest]

Just now, kimmy said:

The quote was about his assumption that women are inherently ok with it because he's a big star. Your inability to comprehend the difference between the two things is extremely disappointing.

 -k

The quote was a quote.  Your judgement of me because I understood what he meant, and such doesn't fit with your opinion of how these things work, is also extremely disappointing. 

[WestCoastRunner]

3 minutes ago, kimmy said:

The quote was about his assumption that women are inherently ok with it because he's a big star. Your inability to comprehend the difference between the two things is extremely disappointing.

 -k

Oh he understands. Just playing ridiculous games. 

[kimmy]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The quote was a quote.  Your judgement of me because I understood what he meant, and such doesn't fit with your opinion of how these things work, is also extremely disappointing. 

There's no way to get from what Trump said to any reasonable definition of sexual consent. You haven't connected those dots, and you can't.

 -k

[kimmy]

9 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Oh he understands. Just playing ridiculous games. 

Perhaps he feels that they consented by being in the mere presence of His Orange Magnificence.  Perhaps he feels that they were "asking for it".

 -k

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

There's no way to get from what Trump said to any reasonable definition of sexual consent. You haven't connected those dots, and you can't.

 -k

That's the whole point.  That's exactly what "they let you do it" means.

You just can't deal with them letting him do it.

[WestCoastRunner]

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

Perhaps he feels that they consented by being in the mere presence of His Orange Magnificence.  Perhaps he feels that they were "asking for it".

 -k

I'd ask him to give his uterus back but obviously he doesn't have one. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Oh he understands. Just playing ridiculous games. 

The ridiculous game is the one where people suppose they have the right to dictate to others what they allow or do not allow, based on their own set of values.  Me, like I said, I'm pro choice.

[kimmy]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's the whole point.  That's exactly what "they let you do it" means.

You just can't deal with them letting him do it.

Just because Trump thinks they're ok with it doesn't actually mean they're ok with it. Just because Trump thinks he has consent doesn't actually mean he has consent. It's the old "I know she wanted it!" standby.

If you go around acting like this to women other than Mrs Sapper, you're going to end up either in jail or in the hospital. The reason people like Trump and Ghomeshi and various professional athletes can act like this is because their position gives them immunity from consequences that you don't have.

 -k

[Bryan]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The ridiculous game is the one where people suppose they have the right to dictate to others what they allow or do not allow, based on their own set of values.  

I'd add to that this crazy acceptance of people who give no indication of disagreement at the time, but who years later decide to object at the precise moment where the revelation is politically convenient.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Just because Trump thinks they're ok with it doesn't actually mean they're ok with it. Just because Trump thinks he has consent doesn't actually mean he has consent. It's the old "I know she wanted it!" standby.

If you go around acting like this to women other than Mrs Sapper, you're going to end up either in jail or in the hospital. The reason people like Trump and Ghomeshi and various professional athletes can act like this is because their position gives them immunity from consequences that you don't have.

 -k

Oh I agree completely.  It doesn't.  I'm talking about those to whom it does.  That's all.  I'll say it really clearly.  If someone lets you do it, it's not assault.  (not withstanding the gun to the head, family held hostage, etc.) One would assume those who are not okay with it are those who have come forward and said so.

The reason people like Trump and Ghomeshi and various professional athletes can act like this is because some people will allow them to, for whatever reason they might have. Maybe they are starstruck, or maybe they are mercenary, who knows?  The fact is, it only becomes assault if they don't want them to.

As to my situation, why would Mrs Sapper not get the same protection from the law that everyone else does?  Not that she needs it, of course, but if I were that way inclined, her being Mrs would in no way excuse that kind of thing.

[kimmy]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

One would assume those who are not okay with it are those who have come forward and said so.

And as I said, people may have reasons for deciding to remain silent, even if they were upset by what occurred. Those reasons might include retaliation-- recall that Trump has threatened all his accusers with lawsuits, and recall that Trump tried to get Nancy O'Dell,  the woman he spoke of attempting to seduce and failing, fired as the host of one of his Miss USA pageants later. Their reason might be fear that nobody would believe them, or that they didn't think the situation was a criminal issue, or that they weren't sure what to do with it.

 

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The reason people like Trump and Ghomeshi and various professional athletes can act like this is because some people will allow them to, for whatever reason they might have.

In the case of Ghomeshi, the coworkers at CBC who complained had their complaints whitewashed by management that was more concerned with protecting their star Ghomeshi than with protecting the "nobodies" who worked with him. In regard to athletes, you can look at the recent scandal at Baylor University (involving Republican hero Kenneth Starr in a central role) to see what happens to women who complain about prominent athletes. Powerful men can get away with things, and Trump is no different.

17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Maybe they are starstruck, or maybe they are mercenary, who knows?

There certainly might be women who make themselves sexually available to Mr Trump in anticipation of financial gain. But if he goes around treating any woman he finds attractive as if she were there to be groped, then he's a criminal.

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The fact is, it only becomes assault if they don't want them to.

If I go out and beat the crap out of somebody, has a crime occurred? Yes.  Maybe they're a hobo who doesn't think the police would believe them. Maybe they're embarrassed to have got beat up by a girl. Maybe they don't think the police would take it seriously. Maybe they just don't want to go to all the hassle of making a real complaint. But regardless of if they make a formal complaint or not: if I beat the crap out of somebody and they don't go to the police, a crime has still occurred.

23 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

As to my situation, why would Mrs Sapper not get the same protection from the law that everyone else does? 

Hypothetically, I'd think you might have a legal defense based on a good-faith belief that Mrs Sapper would consent to you touching her lady-parts. That's certianly not the case if Mr Trump walks up to some random woman and grabs her genitals.

  -k

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, kimmy said:

And as I said, people may have reasons for deciding to remain silent, even if they were upset by what occurred. Those reasons might include retaliation-- recall that Trump has threatened all his accusers with lawsuits, and recall that Trump tried to get Nancy O'Dell,  the woman he spoke of attempting to seduce and failing, fired as the host of one of his Miss USA pageants later. Their reason might be fear that nobody would believe them, or that they didn't think the situation was a criminal issue, or that they weren't sure what to do with it.

 

In the case of Ghomeshi, the coworkers at CBC who complained had their complaints whitewashed by management that was more concerned with protecting their star Ghomeshi than with protecting the "nobodies" who worked with him. In regard to athletes, you can look at the recent scandal at Baylor University (involving Republican hero Kenneth Starr in a central role) to see what happens to women who complain about prominent athletes. Powerful men can get away with things, and Trump is no different.

There certainly might be women who make themselves sexually available to Mr Trump in anticipation of financial gain. But if he goes around treating any woman he finds attractive as if she were there to be groped, then he's a criminal.

If I go out and beat the crap out of somebody, has a crime occurred? Yes.  Maybe they're a hobo who doesn't think the police would believe them. Maybe they're embarrassed to have got beat up by a girl. Maybe they don't think the police would take it seriously. Maybe they just don't want to go to all the hassle of making a real complaint. But regardless of if they make a formal complaint or not: if I beat the crap out of somebody and they don't go to the police, a crime has still occurred.

Hypothetically, I'd think you might have a legal defense based on a good-faith belief that Mrs Sapper would consent to you touching her lady-parts. That's certianly not the case if Mr Trump walks up to some random woman and grabs her genitals.

  -k

Again, I coudn't agree more. And if she doesn't consent, then I would hope he would cease and desist immediately.  If she does, then that's fine.  I don't want to know what happens after that.

We can do this all night, of course.  Just because it's New Years Eve doesn't mean I have anywhere to go. 

So to reiterate:  If someone lets someone else do something, it's not assault.  If you beat the crap out of someone, a crime has occurred.  If they say they were fine with it, I hope the courts take that into account.

Edited January 1, 2017 by bcsapper

[kimmy]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

And if she doesn't consent, then I would hope he would cease and desist immediately.  If she does, then that's fine. 

The crime occurs at the part where he grabs her genitals without consent, not at the point at which she tells him to stop.

 -k

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, kimmy said:

The crime occurs at the part where he grabs her genitals without consent, not at the point at which she tells him to stop.

 -k

Sure, unless she doesn't.  What then?  Call the cops, but wait until they've finished?

[kimmy]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, unless she doesn't.  What then?  Call the cops, but wait until they've finished?

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