Donald Trump and US politics

"

Jennik wrote:

The absurdity and hypocrisy of the right never fails to disgust me. If someone posted a picture of a right-wing politician not touching a woman and screamed "sexual assault!," you'd see an endless stream of complaints about that idiot being an SJW snowflake. But, wait, there's a photograph Democrat not touching a woman? Pitchforks and torches, my fellow SJW snowflakes! Get that sex offender!

If you think it's okay to take pictures like this of sleeping women because your hands are not-quite-touching her clothes, so she can wait until the photos are released and discover this image, then there is something drastically wrong with the way you formulate the concept of sexual assault.

I don't give a fuck about your so-called not-touching, Jennik. The only thing I give a fuck about in this picture is whether she's awake or not. And she doesn't fucking look awake to me.

I am trying very fucking hard to be civil.

Scrotes, the only thing you give a fuck about is him being a Democrat. I've seen your disgusting defense of far, far worse than that picture plenty of times in this thread. I've seen what triggers you to scream "SJW!" I doubt you're even lying about caring about this specific thing, though, since your extreme delusions have so thoroughly skewed your perception of reality that you're most likely unaware you even hold these ridiculous double standards. For fuck's sake, you can't even recognize that you're far-right, and instead laughably label yourself a centrist.

[Removed by Support]

"

The_Reporter wrote:

The access video

For fuck's sake.

"

Trump: ...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.

He is saying women throw themselves at stars. Some do. And when they let you do whatever you want, it isn't sexual assault. With consent, there is no law against grabbing women by the pussy.

The worst you can get Trump for here is some sexist egotism: it's rather narcissistic to assume that people one hasn't even met want to have sex any way one wants, and doing so (likely) creates an unrealistic stereotype of the women one encounters. I'm not saying there is nothing controversial here. I'm just saying there's no description of sexual assault.

The key is always consent. Ms. Tweeden's face in that photograph makes a statement about consent, one which Ms. Tweeden maintains to this day. If Ms. Tweeden is awake and faking sleep in that photo... well, that'd be kind of sick, but at that point, no longer sexual assault. Mr. Trump specifically mentioned affirmative consent, so that's not sexual assault. See? Not so difficult.

Now as far as your 15 claims, well, that depends on the stories. But let's just say that anyone who has photographic evidence of the actual assault gets top billing.

"

Jennik wrote:

Scrotes, the only thing you give a fuck about is him being a Democrat. I've seen your disgusting defense of far, far worse than that picture plenty of times in this thread. I've seen what triggers you to scream "SJW!" I doubt you're even lying about caring about this specific thing, though, since your extreme delusions have so thoroughly skewed your perception of reality that you're most likely unaware you even hold these ridiculous double standards. For fuck's sake, you can't even recognize that you're far-right, and instead laughably label yourself a centrist.

Feel free to browse your own post history to see your blatant hypocrisy. You're full of shit.

I will concede one point to you easily: I don't believe in automatically believing the accuser. Nor do I believe in automatically believing the accused either, but I'll admit that believing no one, as I have a strong tendency to do, doesn't generally result in me taking an activist position favoring the accuser.

This is different, because of this thing called evidence. I like evidence.

Oh, and I actually liked Senator Franken before this. I owned a signed copy of Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. I hated the Bushes and still do, and as such Franken's comedy appealed to me once. My sister (a Minnesotan) campaigned for the asshole, and I was pretty fucking Democrat back in '08. Has he been all SJW since '12? I wouldn't know, because I didn't want to know; I stopped following Franken in the news because I didn't want disappointment. Willfull ignorance, within a narrow band. So no, it's not about him being a Dem.

Ah, yes, the photograph of a comedian on a tour where they do crude sexual comedy making a crude sexual joke while literally not touching someone. Outrageous! Sexual assault!! Somebody call the goddamn POPE!!!

[Removed by Support]

I'm not sure he's not touching her. My point wasn't that he isn't. My point is that non-touch doesn't make such a thing okay. Only consent makes such a thing okay.

Also, nice victim blaming. What a harlot, going overseas to do comedy for the troops. Obviously she had it coming. Oh, I think I just threw up a little.

"

[Removed by Support]

It seems to me that what you're saying is that once she accepts a certain role, such as "crude sexual comedy performer," she is stuck in that role until she quits it, that is, she is always "on the job" until she makes some kind of formal break.

[Removed by Support]

"

The_Reporter wrote:

Jennik is right about you.

I misspoke. Every answer has a TRUMPLET bias.

Scrotie's post above yours says nothing pro-Trump. He is criticizing people on both sides for similar reasons.

So, I'd say your assessment is Mostly False.