Uhhh.. How could anyone not have heard the conversation?  I mean, it's your opinion.  And that's fine.  That wasn't joking...  That was a dude talking about how he feels entitled because of his social status and wealth to get away with advancing on women without their initial consent.

 

That's what this is about.

 

Consent v.  un-wanted advances that can be defined as sexual assault.

And that is your opinion.  What I heard was an arrogant jerk puffing up his chest and blowing a lot of hot air to impress the fella's.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

How do you know that it doesn't mean consent? What evidence do you have?(even if the thing he said was actually a joke and shouldn't be taking literally)


If someone punched you on the street you wouldn't punch them back?

Who knows? Never been randomly punched in the street before. I know a tough guy like yourself would obviously retaliate even if the guy was built like Tyson.

---

Who knows? Never been randomly punched in the street before. I know a tough guy like yourself would obviously retaliate even if the guy was built like Tyson.

 

And I know a weak guy like yourself would cower even if he was built liked Urkel.

---

Who knows? Never been randomly punched in the street before. I know a tough guy like yourself would obviously retaliate even if the guy was built like Tyson.

Exactly who knows. Yeah if another guy randomly hit me on the street I'd hit him back regardless of what he looked like. Not a matter of toughness.

---

Exactly who knows. Yeah if another guy randomly hit me on the street I'd hit him back regardless of what he looked like. Not a matter of toughness.

 

Well then you possibly aren't that smart. It would be scenario dependent for me don't really fancy being hospitalised.

 

Either way I have not consented to be punched in the face.

---

Well then you possibly aren't that smart. It would be scenario dependent for me don't really fancy being hospitalised.


Either way I have not consented to be punched in the face.

If a guy punched your woman on the street would you hit him back?

---

And I know a weak guy like yourself would cower even if he was built liked Urkel.

 

Oh no, i've been put down by an internet tough guy who will definitely be a tough guy off the computer...  :teehee:

---

If a guy punched your women on the street would you hit him back?

 

"My women"? You have gone all Donald Trump there.

---

"My women"? You have gone all Donald Trump there.

 

You have to use politically correct terminology around effeminate nu-males such as lastonealive.

 

"Your significant partner"

---

In response to a comment that said.. "when you are a star, they let you do it," she posted this..

let 1 (lĕt)

v. let, let·ting, lets

v.tr.

1. To give permission or opportunity to; allow:



So if you are taking him at his word that he does these things, then you need to stop ignoring the "let" part of his comments.



Like someone else on here said, words matter. Not just the ones you want to pick and choose to pay attention to.

This type of logic can be used to exonerate anyone if you never take any time to get the details on anything else. You cannot simply take a person at their word and brush the possibility of anything else having been the case under the rug. You cannot eliminate the possibility he grabbed someone's crotch and they did not want him to simply because he said they "let" him. You cannot jump to that conclusion without any other context of an incident.


Not making any judgment on whether or not Trump is making an accurate statement. Simply pointing out you cannot be dismissive of the possibility he is not being truthful simply because he says so.


So tell me where any of my posts were not trying to drive home this exact point.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

You have to use politically correct terminology around effeminate nu-males such as lastonealive.

 

"Your significant partner"

Yes it's terrible to refer to people in a respectful manner. 

 

People who get upset about being politically correct = upset that they can't be racist/sexist without looking like a tool.

---

Don't have time to review the whole thread, so pardon me if this has already been pointed out. 

 

I've heard it said rape and sexual assault aren't about sex, but power.  It is the assertion of one's power over someone who is helpless to resist, for reasons of actual or perceived weakness.  True sexual predators get off on the power, not the sex act.

 

I don't know if Donald is a groper, but his statement about "grab them by the _______" because you can get away with it when you are "a star", speaks to what he wants to do with his power.

 

If we are stupid enough to give this man more power than he already has, he'll be grabbing his perceived enemies by the genitals. He pretty much told Hillary that in the debate with the "you'd be in jail" quip.  The trumpettes like this about him, because they think he'll be the authoritarian that will subjugate the Mexicans, Muslims, Iranians, and the GOP establishment. The problem is, when you disagree with him - and you inevitably will - he's going to give you the same treatment, no matter who is wrong or right.

 

Other men and women do great things with their power.  They adopt orphans, they help eradicate diseases, they fight hunger, they try to make the world a better place.

 

Donald just wants to grab the genitals of whoever he wants on any given day. 

 

He is a petty, incredibly small-minded human being that has made the world a little worse via twitter for the last 5 years.  He will not behave like Eisenhower, Lincoln, or T. Roosevelt, he will behave pretty much like Burlosconi, Pinochet, or Marcos (No way he's up there with the Hitlers and Stalins, gives him too much credit).

 

While I understand anger at the establishment, I don't understand cutting off your nose to spite your face.  That's what we would have done if we elected Donald.  Now, thanks to his own big mouth, it doesn't look like we will.

 

What a wonderful October surprise.

 

Pinochet, lol.  Trump didn't indicate that she would be in jail because he is big and bad and all his political opponents need to be locked up.  He said she would be in jail because she demonstorably violated the espionage act and the freedom of information acts record keeping requirements. 

 

When you destroy evidence that is under subpoena, that's a crime.  When you are legally required to affirmatively preserve your work related emails and devices and you don't, that's a crime.  When you sign an exit document stating that you surrendered all your work related emails and then we discover thousands more that you didn't turn over (as required by law) that's perjury.  In this case the list goes on.

 

He wasn't threatening political retaliation, he was affirmatively stating a commitment to enforce the law. 

 

In reality, the people who purport that just because Mrs. Clinton is seeking elected office, or that her husband is a former president, that she should somehow be held immune from ANY wrong doing are advocating a banana republic.  not those who are simply advocating the simple rule of law. 

---

"My women"? You have gone all Donald Trump there.

No your woman. Same as saying "your girl" "your gf" "your girlfriend" "your sheila" "your partner"


So if a guy punched her on the street would you hit him back?

---

In response to a comment that said.. "when you are a star, they let you do it," she posted this..



This type of logic can be used to exonerate anyone if you never take any time to get the details on anything else. You cannot simply take a person at their word and brush the possibility of anything else having been the case under the rug. You cannot eliminate the possibility he grabbed someone's crotch and they did not want him to simply because he said they "let" him. You cannot jump to that conclusion without any other context of an incident.


Not making any judgment on whether or not Trump is making an accurate statement. Simply pointing out you cannot be dismissive of the possibility he is not being truthful simply because he says so.


So tell me where any of my posts were not trying to drive home this exact point.

Where the hell does Bunnie say or suggest you can completely eliminate any other possibility because he said "they let him"


All she said was that if you consider that what he said to be true(that he grabs women by the [BLEEP] when he meets them), then you also have to consider that the "lets" part is also true.


She never once said that simply saying "let's" means its automatically true. She simply said you have to consider it may be true if you believe what Trump said to be truthful and not an attempt at humour.

---

In response to a comment that said.. "when you are a star, they let you do it," she posted this..



This type of logic can be used to exonerate anyone if you never take any time to get the details on anything else. You cannot simply take a person at their word and brush the possibility of anything else having been the case under the rug. You cannot eliminate the possibility he grabbed someone's crotch and they did not want him to simply because he said they "let" him. You cannot jump to that conclusion without any other context of an incident.


Not making any judgment on whether or not Trump is making an accurate statement. Simply pointing out you cannot be dismissive of the possibility he is not being truthful simply because he says so.


So tell me where any of my posts were not trying to drive home this exact point.

 

Frankly you're embarrassing yourself.  It was Bch's assertion that the conversation in question was discussing consensual activity predicated on Mr. Trump's status as a celebrity and a person of great means. 

 

No matter how you slice it, no matter how much you disagree, your response to her was disrespectful, demeaning, and disgusting. You don't talk to women like that PERIOD!

 

Worse still, she was absolutely right!  I have watched you bloviate about some convoluted slipper slope argument for the last few pages now. 

 

1.) If all you are going by is the conversation then you have no evidence to support the idea that he was talking about random encounters with total strangers that he didn't have a rapport with based on the Text and the tone of the conversation. 

 

2.) No one is saying that a sexual abuse victim should be disallowed because of the story of a potential abuser.  We are simply saying that YOU CAN'T CONJURE A VICTIM OUT OF THIN AIR WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO GO ON!'

 

3.) If you want to talk about a slippery slope, how about having a person with a demonstrable pattern of real sexual abuse that has cost him 800k, his law license, and a public impeachment still being heralded as a role model by the left. 

 

If you're not man enough to apologize, just admit it.  This level of graveling to try and save yourself is just embarrassing.  You are wrong 95% of the time, but you're still better than this. 

---

Pinochet, lol.  Trump didn't indicate that she would be in jail because he is big and bad and all his political opponents need to be locked up.  He said she would be in jail because she demonstorably violated the espionage act and the freedom of information acts record keeping requirements. 

 

When you destroy evidence that is under subpoena, that's a crime.  When you are legally required to affirmatively preserve your work related emails and devices and you don't, that's a crime.  When you sign an exit document stating that you surrendered all your work related emails and then we discover thousands more that you didn't turn over (as required by law) that's perjury.  In this case the list goes on.

 

He wasn't threatening political retaliation, he was affirmatively stating a commitment to enforce the law. 

 

In reality, the people who purport that just because Mrs. Clinton is seeking elected office, or that her husband is a former president, that she should somehow be held immune from ANY wrong doing are advocating a banana republic.  not those who are simply advocating the simple rule of law. 

 

Not going over this again for the 100th time.  I take Comey at his word, you don't.

 

I'm always interested in your perspective, though, jj.  To the topic at hand of Trump's foul mouthed leaked conversation, do you agree with me it's about a vulgar display of power, or do you think it's really about groping?

---

Where the hell does Bunnie say or suggest you can completely eliminate any other possibility because he said "they let him"


All she said was that if you consider that what he said to be true(that he grabs women by the [BAD WORD REMOVED] when he meets them), then you also have to consider that the "lets" part is also true.


She never once said that simply saying "let's" means its automatically true. She simply said you have to consider it may be true if you believe what Trump said to be truthful and not an attempt at humour.

She is saying if you take him at his word you need to emphasize the point these women "let" him do this..


So should we always automatically take a guy at his word when they say a woman let them do whatever to them? What if I don't take him at his word? You cannot simply draw a conclusion without knowing anything else.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

No your woman. Same as saying "your girl" "your gf" "your girlfriend" "your sheila" "your partner"


So if a guy punched her on the street would you hit him back?

 

There's a very good chance yes. Not sure how that is relevant to my general point, Many women don't fight back when raped out of fear, it doesn't make it consent.

---

She is saying if you take him at his word you need to emphasize the point these women "let" him do this..


So should we always automatically take a guy at his word when they say a woman let them do whatever to them? What if I don't take him at his word? You cannot simply draw a conclusion without knowing anything else.

No she's saying if you take him at his word then you are assuming what he says to be true. Because he said that they let him then you have to consider that this may be true.


She never said or implied that we should "automatically take a guy at his word when they say a women let them do whatever to them".


As jj says you are better than this. You have embarrassed yourself again and everyone can see it.

---

There's a very good chance yes. Not sure how that is relevant to my general point, Many women don't fight back when raped out of fear, it doesn't make it consent.

So if a guy hit you on the street there's a very good chance you'd hit him back?


Yeah it doesn't make it consent. Nobody said it does.

---