Hollywood Actor Tweets The President Should Die

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

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

 

Correct....Americans have free speech rights...sorry.   It's not Canada, where SJWs can shout down and silence those they disagree with.

Please keep your ethics and your standards away from my rights.

More men are assaulted each year than women.

Edited January 1, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Please keep your ethics and your standards away from my rights.

 

Don't worry, Cheney, with Trump leading your country, ethics and standards are done for your country.   

[betsy]

15 hours ago, Omni said:

That's mot the issue, that's simply your feeble attempt to deflect.

 

That's the issue!

If it weren't taken out of context, there wouldn't be an issue about it!

[betsy]

15 hours ago, kimmy said:

What Trump said is this, when they noticed Ariana Zucker:

If you walk up to a woman and kiss her or grab her genitals, that's a sexual assault. Whether she slaps your face afterward, or whether she kisses you back afterward, you started things off by acting like a predator. Maybe Trump feels that women let him do anything because none of them slap his face or call the police afterward, but that doesn't make it any less appalling. Personally, if someone walks up to me and grabs my genitals, they're getting a concussion.

His attitude is clearly "I am a big deal so I am entitled to have access to women's bodies." Much like when he was bragging to Howard Stern that since he runs the beauty pageants he is entitled to walk into the changing room to look at the nude girls.

 -k

 

 

 

Bingo!

Of course it's sexual assault to grab somebody's genitals.  They'd know that, too....unless both are morons (which I doubt).   That's why the whole PRIVATE conversation is nothing more but a caricature of two testosterones talking!

It wasn't meant to be made for public consumption!!!

 

The media who published this had shamed Arianna Zucker (in particular, also a married woman) for revealing a private conversation about her, which is not anyone's business! 

 

 

Btw, corrections:

He was no longer talking about Arianna Zacker in particular when he talked about grabbing genitals.  The conversation took a shift when he said:  "You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful...."

Here, read the transcript:

 

 

Quote

 

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html?_r=0

 

Trump is a celebrity, no denying that.  He's also a well-known billionaire!  He's talking from observation of other celebrities, or maybe even from experience, thus he said..."WHEN YOU'RE A STAR....they let you do it.  You can do anything."

And Bush agreed with that observation by saying, "Whatever you want."    Billy Bush wasn't referring to Trump personally, he was using the generalized YOU.

And Trump emphasized "whatever" is.....by saying,  you can even grab them by the pussy, they'll let you do anything!

 

Of course both would know that not all women would let you do that!  Obviously, they're talking about certain kind of women! 

 

 

That's all it was.  I don't know how that is too hard to understand.  Of course the anti-Trumps are in a frenzy that even some well-educated people are blinded by their emotions! 

Everybody mimics the non-thinking talking heads they see on tv!  The talking heads were not there to think -  they weren't there to be fair. They're there to influence the election by lying!

People swallowed it up without thinking too, and have gone berserk - that's how I see it.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

You guys, have you gone in a bar?  Can't you tell which women in the bar - by their behaviours - you can grope with no problem?  The ones who'd let you do anything?  

 

What more when you're a celebrity!  Let's get real here, shall we?  No more silly or juvenile talks!

Edited January 1, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

14 hours ago, kimmy said:

 

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

Gomeshi's sexual preference is weird.....but there's no denying those women were willing participants! The courts proved it.   They liked that kind of kinky sex. 

Not all women who cry sex assault, are victims! 

 

So now, even though it's proven in court....to the feminazis, our court system isn't good enough! 

 

Did you hear the chant of the feminazi protesters?  Did you read about how they also directed their anger at the lawyer of Ghomeshi?

 

If there's any one suffering from delusional entitlement - that would be the feminazis, who think they're the ones who can decide who's guilty and who's not!   They imagine themselves with rights to be able to wreck a person's life no matter what the court had ruled!  That's ENTITLEMENT!

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

7 hours 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.  

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.  

Yeah, it bothers me too.  It also bothers me when someone calls an action sexual assault if in fact it was mutually acceptable to both parties. That's what we were arguing about.  The meaning of "They let you do it"  Nothing else.

You brought up private parts first.

You think I'm an oppressive, misogynistic entitled dick. because I believe people should be allowed to choose their sexual partners, without consulting you.  Okay.

Edited January 1, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

You fail to understand the basic fact that the victim's behavior after the fact  is not what defines an assault, whether sexual or not.

I think you're missing the point. If you kiss, hug, grope a woman and she's offended, then you're in trouble, or could be, depending on how far she wants to take things. But if you're a 'celebrity' and instead of getting angry she giggles and flirts with you, well then, you guessed right. Grats.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, kimmy said:

The quote was about his assumption that women are inherently ok with it because he's a big star.

Sometimes... they are. Face it, how a woman receives a man's sexual/physical advances often depends on who the man is. If he's hot looking, or a rich celebrity, there are different standards. A short, dumpy bald poor guy going around grabbing pussies would have been in jail by now. Nobody would allow it and would call the cops. A rich celebrity apparently can do a lot more without causing women to file complaints. In fact, nobody called the cops on Trump. Why? None of these women worked for him. 

Note: I am NOT saying they all welcomed his advances or that I'm cool with what he did or his arrogant assumptions. I am suggesting that some of them WERE cool with it, and those who weren't, well, mostly weren't all that angry, at least, not angry enough to call a cop or give him a knee in he groin.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

15 hours ago, 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

Realistically, grabbing genitals without consent happens hundreds of thousands of times a day around Canada and the US. It's done by people who 'believe' the other party will welcome their advance, or at least, won't be all that upset by it. Many of these people are on dates. Often they are right in their assessments. Sometimes not. Trump 'believed' that the other parties would welcome his advance, or at least not be all that upset by it. Since nobody gave him their knee in response perhaps he was mostly right.

That doesn't change the fact I think he was a scummy perve, btw.

 

[dialamah]

38 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You brought up private parts first.

So wrong.  You started by accusing Kimmy, then moved on to WCR.  Cheney got into the act, WCR responded to him and I responded to her.  Go check.

39 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It also bothers me when someone calls an action sexual assault if in fact it was mutually acceptable to both parties. That's what we were arguing about

In Canada, it is illegal to for one person to hit or hurt another, regardless of previous consent obtained.   So for consenting adults in a BDSM relationship, the person inflicting pain can be charged with assault, regardless of whether their partner wants.  The partner would be considered a 'witness' to the assault.   Similar for domestic violence:  even if the victim "lets him do it" does not want to press charges, wants to continue living with him, cook his meals and make babies with them, he can still be charged with assault.   The prosecutor may choose not to go ahead with charges, especially in cases of consensual BDSM activity, but that doesn't mean their activities are suddenly legal.

In the context of groping, while charges probably aren't going to be laid unless the woman initiates them, "letting him do it" does not change the initial illegal act into a legal one.   It has nothing to do with the woman's choices after the fact; it has everything to do with the man's choices before the fact.    In most cases, women aren't going to press charges or even do much besides avoid such a man, not because they enjoyed it or 'let him' but because they don't want to deal with the hassle of police/courts/media.    And if a woman afterward decides to sleep with him, that still doesn't make his initial illegal assault legal.   

48 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You think I'm an oppressive, misogynistic entitled dick. because I believe people should be allowed to choose their sexual partners, without consulting you.  Okay.

It's not that you believe people should be allowed to choose their sexual partners while I don't, it's because you don't understand what 'consent' means, why 'grabbing pussy' is a sexual assault regardless of what the woman does afterward, and that anyone who doesn't agree with that must be 'angry at other women for making choices they disapproved of'.    You couldn't possibly be wrong, right?  Must be angry feminists that are the problem.

 

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

I think you're missing the point. If you kiss, hug, grope a woman and she's offended, then you're in trouble, or could be, depending on how far she wants to take things. But if you're a 'celebrity' and instead of getting angry she giggles and flirts with you, well then, you guessed right. Grats.

Yup, from the man's perspective that's absolutely right.   But kissing and groping without consent is still illegal.   Even if she giggles and flirts in return.   

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

So wrong.  You started by accusing Kimmy, then moved on to WCR.  Cheney got into the act, WCR responded to him and I responded to her.  Go check.

In Canada, it is illegal to for one person to hit or hurt another, regardless of previous consent obtained.   So for consenting adults in a BDSM relationship, the person inflicting pain can be charged with assault, regardless of whether their partner wants.  The partner would be considered a 'witness' to the assault.   Similar for domestic violence:  even if the victim "lets him do it" does not want to press charges, wants to continue living with him, cook his meals and make babies with them, he can still be charged with assault.   The prosecutor may choose not to go ahead with charges, especially in cases of consensual BDSM activity, but that doesn't mean their activities are suddenly legal.

In the context of groping, while charges probably aren't going to be laid unless the woman initiates them, "letting him do it" does not change the initial illegal act into a legal one.   It has nothing to do with the woman's choices after the fact; it has everything to do with the man's choices before the fact.    In most cases, women aren't going to press charges or even do much besides avoid such a man, not because they enjoyed it or 'let him' but because they don't want to deal with the hassle of police/courts/media.    And if a woman afterward decides to sleep with him, that still doesn't make his initial illegal assault legal.   

It's not that you believe people should be allowed to choose their sexual partners while I don't, it's because you don't understand what 'consent' means, why 'grabbing pussy' is a sexual assault regardless of what the woman does afterward, and that anyone who doesn't agree with that must be 'angry at other women for making choices they disapproved of'.    You couldn't possibly be wrong, right?  Must be angry feminists that are the problem.

 

It is exactly that I believe people should be allowed to choose their sexual partners while you don't,  You think it's sexual assault when women let DT touch them.  That is the problem here.  I think it's sexual assault when people don't let him do it.  You think it's sexual assault when people do let him do it as well.

You really have no argument to refute that, as there isn't one, so you have to get personal. 

[dialamah]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

Sometimes... they are. Face it, how a woman receives a man's sexual/physical advances often depends on who the man is. If he's hot looking, or a rich celebrity, there are different standards. A short, dumpy bald poor guy going around grabbing pussies would have been in jail by now. Nobody would allow it and would call the cops. A rich celebrity apparently can do a lot more without causing women to file complaints. In fact, nobody called the cops on Trump. Why? None of these women worked for him. 

Note: I am NOT saying they all welcomed his advances or that I'm cool with what he did or his arrogant assumptions. I am suggesting that some of them WERE cool with it, and those who weren't, well, mostly weren't all that angry, at least, not angry enough to call a cop or give him a knee in he groin.

I agree with your assessment here.   But that still doesn't change the legality of grabbing pussy without consent.   If it wasn't illegal, no woman would ever have the option of pressing charges, whether she chooses to do so or not.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I agree with your assessment here.   But that still doesn't change the legality of grabbing pussy without consent.   If it wasn't illegal, no woman would ever have the option of pressing charges, whether she chooses to do so or not.

 

If it was without consent, she wouldn't be letting him do it.

[kimmy]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

I think you're missing the point. If you kiss, hug, grope a woman and she's offended, then you're in trouble, or could be, depending on how far she wants to take things. But if you're a 'celebrity' and instead of getting angry she giggles and flirts with you, well then, you guessed right. Grats.

Lots of guys "guess wrong".  "I could tell she wanted it," "if she didn't want it, why was she dressed like that," "she said no but I could tell she didn't mean it,"  and many similar phrases have been used countless times over the years by guys who committed sexual assaults on women because they "guessed wrong".

If you're concerned about the risk of being accused of assault because you "guessed wrong", here's a handy tip: don't grab a woman between the neck and the knees as your opening move. What kind of douche would do that?

 -k

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, kimmy said:

If you're concerned about the risk of being accused of assault because you "guessed wrong", here's a handy tip: don't grab a woman between the neck and the knees as your opening move. What kind of douche would do that?

A drunk one? A teenager? Someone being more than a bit too aggressive? Happens all the time. Sometimes the opening move is kissing, btw, and nobody asks for permission first. If that's okay, you move forward. Every guy knows (well the ones that aren't morons) that what you do at any given moment is a constant assessment and reassessment of what the girl will accept. And yes, sometimes you're wrong, and better back off.

But when a rich celebrity makes those assessments they're based on his experience, and his experience evidently (never having been a rich celebrity I couldn't say personally) that women will let you get away with a hell of a lot more than they would if you were a poor nerdy guy with glasses and buck teeth.

And I wonder if we turned this around what that would suggest? If a rich, hot woman grabs a guy by the dick and smiles, how often is she likely to be rejected? Guys, by and large, are sluts, after all. That, of course, is one of the reasons our perspective is sometimes a little off in terms of what the woman will allow...

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Argus

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

It is exactly that I believe people should be allowed to choose their sexual partners while you don't,  You think it's sexual assault when women let DT touch them.  That is the problem here.  I think it's sexual assault when people don't let him do it.  You think it's sexual assault when people do let him do it as well.

 

The law says that it is sexual assault when a man grabs a woman by the pussy/boobs/ass, or kisses her without her consent.    Unlike consensual BDSM or domestic abuse situations, the law allows the woman to make the decision as to whether take legal action against that assault.   

Quote

 I think it's sexual assault when people don't let him do it. 

The action IS the sexual assault, legally speaking.    "Letting him do it" by not objecting and/or by flirting or sleeping with him is a choice the woman makes AFTER he's performed an act for which he could be charged.    

Women who will sleep with men because of their fame/fortune will do so without the man in question having to grab their privates.   That Trump does so is about him and who he is, not the women to whom he subjects to this illegal and disgusting behavior.   

 

 

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

And I wonder if we turned this around what that would suggest? If a rich, hot woman grabs a guy by the dick and smiles, how often is she likely to be rejected? Guys, by and large, are sluts, after all. That, of course, is one of the reasons our perspective is sometimes a little off in terms of what the woman will allow...

I think many, if not most, guys are actually uncomfortable with this kind of behavior from women, and feel trapped by the expectation that as a man they should welcome and enjoy it.    Sure, he can 'let her do it' whatever that means in the moment, but again the assault perpetrated by the woman is an illegal act for which the man does have legal recourse, if he chooses to use it.   But even more so than a woman, a man is likely to feel limited in his responses by the way in which society judges behavior by men and women.

Either way, an assault is an assault, regardless of the perpetrator's status or the victim's sex.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The law says that it is sexual assault when a man grabs a woman by the pussy/boobs/ass, or kisses her without her consent.    Unlike consensual BDSM or domestic abuse situations, the law allows the woman to make the decision as to whether take legal action against that assault.   

 

And it is, of course.  At least we agree on something.  When she lets him do it, it isn't though.  I wish we could agree on that too.

[kimmy]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

Gomeshi's sexual preference is weird.....but there's no denying those women were willing participants! The courts proved it.   They liked that kind of kinky sex. 

Not all women who cry sex assault, are victims! 

 

I wasn't referring to the women who complained to the police to launch the sexual assault trial.

I was referring to Ghomeshi's co-workers at CBC who were subjected to unwanted sexual grabbing, sexual talk, and demeaning comments from Ghomeshi, and whose complaints were swept under the rug by CBC management.  Ghomeshi made a public apology to his producer Kathryn Borel, CBC made a public apology to Ms Borel, and an investigation at CBC resulted in firings and found that complaints had been swept under the rug for years.  Borel is the only CBC worker who came out publicly against Ghomeshi, but she wasn't the only one who complained about him to management. A second female producer left Ghomeshi's show before Borel, also due to his behavior. The Rubin Report investigation into the mess made clear that these weren't the only two women who complained about Ghomeshi. The managers who received these complaints conducted sham investigations that were found to have not actually spoken to anyone who worked there, because obviously they were more concerned about protecting their star attraction than protecting easily-replaceable staffers.

Borel on what it was like working under Ghomeshi:

Quote

Workers like me only had job security so long as we accepted his abuses of authority. I was essentially forced to either leave the show or allow my boss to lay his hands on my body at his pleasure.

Borel on her fear of coming out publicly against a celebrity:

Quote

...I wasn’t keen to be called a slut and a liar and a fabulist, and I was nervous that someone would identify me publicly and, in doing so, would damage the new career and life I’d worked so hard to build.

The court found the women who accused Ghomeshi of sexual assault to be not credible witnesses, but the women at CBC who suffered under Ghomeshi still owe those liars a debt of gratitude, because without the police getting involved, the CBC wouldn't have done crap about their workplace complaints. Ghomeshi would still be grinding his privates against womens' asses at CBC today.

 

 -k

[kimmy]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

Of course it's sexual assault to grab somebody's genitals.  They'd know that, too....unless both are morons (which I doubt).   That's why the whole PRIVATE conversation is nothing more but a caricature of two testosterones talking!

Yeah yeah, it's just "regular locker room talk"... at least if you share a locker room with Ben Roethlisberger and Patrick Kane.

6 hours ago, betsy said:

It wasn't meant to be made for public consumption!!!

So? You're basically just saying "Trump didn't want people to see what kind of guy he really is."  The world is full of scumbags who pretend to be role models when people are watching but reveal their true selves when they think nobody is watching. That's Trump. The tape we saw is the real Trump, the guy who stands on a stage is an act.

6 hours ago, betsy said:

The media who published this had shamed Arianna Zucker (in particular, also a married woman) for revealing a private conversation about her, which is not anyone's business! 

I don't see how Arianna Zucker has anything to be ashamed of. I think she handled an extremely awkward situation with as much grace as anybody could muster under such circumstances. I think Arianna Zucker is the only person on the whole tape who shouldn't be ashamed of herself. Trump, obviously, for talking about grabbing genitals and telling his story about attempting to seduce a married woman. Billy Bush for fawning over Trump's scummy antics like a teenager. Bush especially for attempting to pimp Ms Zucker out to the adulterous pussy-grabber. And Nancy O'Dell wasn't there in person, but should probably be pretty ashamed for going furniture shopping with a famed adulterer.  I don't see why Arianna Zucker has anything to feel bad about. The rest of them should be bloody mortified.

6 hours ago, betsy said:

Btw, corrections:

He was no longer talking about Arianna Zacker in particular when he talked about grabbing genitals.  The conversation took a shift when he said:  "You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful...."

Yes, I realize that. He wasn't talking about grabbing Arianna Zucker's pussy, he was simply claiming that he can grab any woman by the pussy, they let him do it.  Is that supposed to make him seem less creepy?

6 hours ago, betsy said:

Trump is a celebrity, no denying that.  He's also a well-known billionaire!  He's talking from observation of other celebrities, or maybe even from experience, thus he said..."WHEN YOU'RE A STAR....they let you do it.  You can do anything."

And Bush agreed with that observation by saying, "Whatever you want."    Billy Bush wasn't referring to Trump personally, he was using the generalized YOU.

And Trump emphasized "whatever" is.....by saying,  you can even grab them by the pussy, they'll let you do anything!

 

Of course both would know that not all women would let you do that!  Obviously, they're talking about certain kind of women! 

"A certain kind of women" meaning ... women he thinks look like sluts or bimbos? Women like Nancy O'Dell? Arianna Zucker?

 -k

[kimmy]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

You guys, have you gone in a bar?  Can't you tell which women in the bar - by their behaviours - you can grope with no problem?  The ones who'd let you do anything?  

 

I've spent more time in bars than most, usually as an employee.

I can tell you that only the most socially crippled losers approach women by grabbing them between the neck and the knees, and those who do get turfed by the bouncers without further warning.

I myself have been grabbed, usually on the behind, by guys who apparently felt they were entitled to do so, either because I was an employee or because of how I was dressed. Those guys also got turfed by the bouncers without further warning.

I don't know what kind of bars you go to, but the ones I've worked at didn't have much tolerance for women being groped at random. I don't know what kind of social cripples you hang out with, but the men I know don't introduce themselves to women by grabbing their genitals.

 -k

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I agree with your assessment here.   But that still doesn't change the legality of grabbing pussy without consent.   If it wasn't illegal, no woman would ever have the option of pressing charges, whether she chooses to do so or not.

 

 

So next time I make love to my gf I better get it in writing?

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

 

So next time I make love to my gf I better get it in writing?

Are we talking about people walking up to strangers and grabbing their privates, or couples in committed relationships?    

And, yes, if you don't have your GF's consent to sex on any particular occasion, you can be charged with rape.   I imagine that proving her non-consent would be more difficult than proving non-consent when some guy randomly grabs the genitals of a woman he doesn't know, so there's that in your favor.