PDA

View Full Version : Trump the next Bill Cosby?


Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 07:07 AM
sJa-3wjz3ls
What do you guys think?

Living For Love
October 9th, 2016, 08:16 AM
Guys, this happened in 2005, he admitted doing it, he apologised for it, move on please.

Vlerchan
October 9th, 2016, 08:46 AM
Guys, this happened in 2005, he admitted doing it, he apologised for it, move on please.
I might be more willing to accept this if Trump 'apologizing' hadn't descended into attacks on Bill for acts stated to have taken place 20+ years ago (but have never been proven).

---

The reason it has been so potent nonetheless is its confirmation of something we were already quite sure was true (Trump is a full-fat mysognist).

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 09:45 AM
Guys, this happened in 2005, he admitted doing it, he apologised for it, move on please.
Oh so as long as sexual assault happened over 10 years ago then it is fine?

I think that video gives great insight into the real Trump.

Even if you believe he has changed over the decade and is now a decent guy.... you'd still be wrong because he has shown in this election how sexist he is!
7GDDMb0ZGd8
ygQbxr_01KM
kZoxqtknuZ8
LDeX_FSQ238
fHbjX9eoPa8

Living For Love
October 9th, 2016, 10:38 AM
Oh so as long as sexual assault happened over 10 years ago then it is fine?
No, what he said was pretty low, but he has now apologised. Hadn't he been on the run for president this wouldn't have been found out.

Also, has the media already found out who the woman he was referring to is? What has she said about all this?

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 11:10 AM
No, what he said was pretty low, but he has now apologised. Hadn't he been on the run for president this wouldn't have been found out.
He done more than say it, he done it!

Also, has the media already found out who the woman he was referring to is? What has she said about all this?
I think he was referring to two people and he forced himself upon loads of women, please watch the video :)
sJa-3wjz3ls
I think it is going to be like Bill Cosby or Roger Ailes, people like that don't just assault one women, they assault many and I suspect more women will be coming forward soon.

Tyson S
October 9th, 2016, 11:44 AM
Honestly, if trump or hilary get in the country is doomed

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 12:11 PM
Honestly, if trump or hilary get in the country is doomed
Why would the country be 'doomed' if Hilary wins?

Tyson S
October 9th, 2016, 12:14 PM
Why would the country be 'doomed' if Hilary wins?

I dont know! hahaha i just like Obama!

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 12:26 PM
I dont know! hahaha i just like Obama!
If you like Obama then I imagine you would like Clinton xD

Porpoise101
October 9th, 2016, 03:44 PM
53% of voters are women. Just going to point that out.

Debate is tonight, so let's see how much he can recover.

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 04:00 PM
53% of voters are women. Just going to point that out.

Debate is tonight, so let's see how much he can recover.
Well I am sure Hilary will want to look polite so she won't press him. In the last debate she missed out so many ways of exposing Trump for the racist, sexist failure that he is. Besides at this point if someone is still a Trump supporter, they're either very stupid, ignorant or a racist/ sexist so I doubt it will hurt him much.

Vlerchan
October 9th, 2016, 04:08 PM
Besides at this point if someone is still a Trump supporter, they're either very stupid, ignorant or a racist/ sexist so I doubt it will hurt him much.
I have a good friend who's a Trump supporter (not here) and she's a rather successful programmer.

So, absurd generalisations, once again, revealed to be absurd generalisations.

Living For Love
October 9th, 2016, 04:11 PM
Typical leftish arguments based on dumb generalisations, not impressed.

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 05:00 PM
I have a good friend who's a Trump supporter (not here) and she's a rather successful programmer.

So, absurd generalisations, once again, revealed to be absurd generalisations.
Of course not everyone falls into the categorises I stated, I am fully aware there are people that want Trump to be president for legit reasons such as to protect the rich or press China if that is what they want. my point was that I doubt the sexual assaults will harm him much. Every time Trump has a scandal it is over-hyped as fuck about people claiming it would make him fall in the polls but it never does.
Typical leftish arguments based on dumb generalisations, not impressed.
What is typical leftish arguments? I notice you didn't notice my previous posts involving Trump talking about sexually assaulting women, women claiming they was sexually assaulted by him, some matching the audio clip and all the sexist stuff he has said in campaign!

I love how the vast majority or trump supporters from you to Pence cannot defend Trump, they deflect, ignore or claim he never said it.
Here is Trump surrogate who cannot defend him:
I_ngEc41oXg
Anyways here is my posts you ignored!
No, what he said was pretty low, but he has now apologised. Hadn't he been on the run for president this wouldn't have been found out.
He done more than say it, he done it!

Also, has the media already found out who the woman he was referring to is? What has she said about all this?
I think he was referring to two people and he forced himself upon loads of women, please watch the video :)
sJa-3wjz3ls
I think it is going to be like Bill Cosby or Roger Ailes, people like that don't just assault one women, they assault many and I suspect more women will be coming forward soon.
Guys, this happened in 2005, he admitted doing it, he apologised for it, move on please.
Oh so as long as sexual assault happened over 10 years ago then it is fine?

I think that video gives great insight into the real Trump.

Even if you believe he has changed over the decade and is now a decent guy.... you'd still be wrong because he has shown in this election how sexist he is!
7GDDMb0ZGd8
ygQbxr_01KM
kZoxqtknuZ8
LDeX_FSQ238
fHbjX9eoPa8

Uniquemind
October 9th, 2016, 05:02 PM
No forgiveness if I cannot verify an apology as genuine.

Whether it is genuine will mean I have to see I to Trump's strength of character, and so far he's been unchanging so I can't trust his apology.

I'm surprised some people can.

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 05:05 PM
I predict there will be a flood of women coming forward soon. Anyone bragging about how they can sexually assault anyone because of their fame and power has a long list of victims.

Sidenote~ his apology was pathetic, deflecting it onto Bill Clinton ffs.
kZsKEHwBld0

Uniquemind
October 9th, 2016, 06:47 PM
If we ever have kids, I wonder how history can censor Trump's remarks that caused him to lose the election.

I am predicting he'll lose.

Babs
October 9th, 2016, 06:57 PM
Trump has showed time and time again that he's an egotistical, irrational, vile man. Sure, he apologized but this isn't just an isolated incident, it's a pattern.

Uniquemind
October 9th, 2016, 09:17 PM
Trump has showed time and time again that he's an egotistical, irrational, vile man. Sure, he apologized but this isn't just an isolated incident, it's a pattern.

A real apology would be a change of his nature. That I would accept but he only has 20+ days to do it and you can't verify he's just acting for a means to an end.

Post election sure maybe I'll consider it if he meets my terms of repentance but other than that nope.

I'm sure many share my sentiments about him.

PlasmaHam
October 11th, 2016, 12:52 PM
http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/14581380_929600660507305_8301897473082470139_n-500x500.jpg
I've been largely absent recently, but it does seem ironic that you are all dismissing the Clintons' actual actions against women 20 years ago as fine, yet Trump's talk about women from 10 years ago as being inexcusable. Admit it, you love the double standard.

Child Of Fire
October 11th, 2016, 07:56 PM
I hate to be that guy...

but women are whining about Trump's sexual assault history while simultaneously buying copies of 50 Shades and other novels that portray rape in a romantic way. I'm not seeing the logic.

phuckphace
October 11th, 2016, 09:43 PM
sex scandals involving famous people tend to be uncovered and publicized widely - the fact that these unsubstantiated rumors remain more or less confined to the Internet is proof that they're likely just rumors. news outlets generally don't risk publishing allegations of this caliber unless there's significant evidence of guilt, otherwise the famous person in question sees "X IS A RAPIST", makes a quick phone call to their attorney and wins big in a defamation suit.

this is what happened to Ted Cruz, himself a lawyer - he really was dicking several prominent women and after it got leaked and published, he couldn't sue anybody for libel because the accusations were true and there was plenty of proof.

I've been largely absent recently, but it does seem ironic that you are all dismissing the Clintons' actual actions against women 20 years ago as fine, yet Trump's talk about women from 10 years ago as being inexcusable. Admit it, you love the double standard.

I hate to be that guy...

but women are whining about Trump's sexual assault history while simultaneously buying copies of 50 Shades and other novels that portray rape in a romantic way. I'm not seeing the logic.

you can't see the logic because it isn't there. this is last-resort flailing by petty, obsessive ankle-biters who can't stand the fact that we're winning.

Drewboyy
October 11th, 2016, 10:54 PM
The media harping on this is just as sad and as far out as calling a fucking frog a hate symbol just to put a bad name onto Trump.

The liberals do this over and over again whenever Clinton starts losing, and every-single-time they are desperately grabbing for air. This video was probably found a while ago and they kept it 'til last weekend because Trump crushed Clinton in the first debate and came out ahead on almost every poll.

Trump is now going to start to pull ahead again and right before the 3rd debate Liberals will pull another stunt.

Uniquemind
October 12th, 2016, 12:20 AM
I hate to be that guy...

but women are whining about Trump's sexual assault history while simultaneously buying copies of 50 Shades and other novels that portray rape in a romantic way. I'm not seeing the logic.

Well one is fiction and is mentally stimulating for readers within a safe controlled environment and what Trump did/does? is not either fiction nor is there any verification of consent involved.

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 07:54 AM
image (http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/14581380_929600660507305_8301897473082470139_n-500x500.jpg)
I've been largely absent recently, but it does seem ironic that you are all dismissing the Clintons' actual actions against women 20 years ago as fine, yet Trump's talk about women from 10 years ago as being inexcusable. Admit it, you love the double standard.
It's unproven that Bill raped or sexually-assaulted any of those women*.

Do you at least agree that what Trump did, and implicated himself in further, was wrong? Did you also read ChristianityTodays (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october-web-only/speak-truth-to-trump.html) piece on Trump - I did and thought it would have interested you .

---

* If this was proven, I would be the first to denounce it and further still, call for Clinton to be incarcerated. You can quote me on this if it ever is proven. The issue is that until Trump decided to make it the new center-piece of his campaign, it was reserved to fringe web-boards and nasty conversation for a reason, despite more than a decade of trying there is no-smoking gun.

(And, like I said in my first post, I'm sure most people guessed that Trump molested women before it was revealed, but the smoking gun proved too much for most people cognitive dissonance [actually, most is wrong, but independents, at least].)

but women are whining about Trump's sexual assault history while simultaneously buying copies of 50 Shades and other novels that portray rape in a romantic way. I'm not seeing the logic.
The acts in 50 Shades of Grey are consensual (if outside our usual sexual norms) so this is a false equivalence (for the name of the logical fallacy being invoked).

Nonetheless that someone fantasizes about rape does not make it follow that they desire to be raped or sexually assaulted (this is a non-sequitur to the extent that I'm afraid generalisation fallacies don't even count for it).

You also seem to be committing the fallacy of [i]Post hoc ergo propter hoc though being as Fifty Shades of Grey was released years after Trump's remarks, and BDSM didn't enter the lens of popular culture until then, it's more likely that in blaming women for their own assaults and rapes, you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

this is last-resort flailing by petty, obsessive ankle-biters who can't stand the fact that we're winning.
Even Trump doesn't seem to believe he can win anymore.

Though at the very least there's a significant difference in character between Bill and Trump insofar as the latter took to boast about his own assaults (if we also believe that bill did rape and assault women, that claim has been on-going for years and you're still to find the smoking gun).

The liberals do this over and over again whenever Clinton starts losing, and every-single-time they are desperately grabbing for air. This video was probably found a while ago and they kept it 'til last weekend because Trump crushed Clinton in the first debate and came out ahead on almost every poll.

I genuinely find it disturbing that Conservatives are caught up in their own political bubble to this extent. It doesn't bode well for the future of political discourse. I'm not going to bother linking to the mass of polls because I realize you'll call them 'rigged' or whatever. But Trump is literally imploding in real-time, if you keep up with his twitter feed.

phuckphace
October 12th, 2016, 09:50 AM
ChristianityTodays (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october-web-only/speak-truth-to-trump.html) piece on Trump - I did and thought it would have interested you [it's probably the most intellectually competent denunciation of Trump I have come across - at least reading through the lens of cultural Catholicism].

theology isn't my strong suit, but the author of the article seems to suffer the same shortcomings as most of Trump's other critics - it's a combination of tone-deafness and inability or unwillingness to parse the nuances.

Trump's gimmick is showmanship - he has been in front of cameras most of his adult life and it's very obvious to most people that his blustering "I'M VERY RICH" is a ploy for free publicity at the expense of an equally tone-teaf media. compare his seemingly arrogant campaign strut to footage of him in one-on-one interviews throughout the years and you can see for yourself that his actual personality is far more subdued and businesslike with no sign of a God complex.

back to the specific theology of the article, I find it interesting that the author chose to bring up King David, the guy who had another guy bumped off so he could rail his wife. the Bible is replete with examples of even worse people being unwittingly used by God to fulfill his Planô - Emperor Titus is said to have admitted that he acted to sack Jerusalem because the Jewish God needed a Literal Hitler to fulfill that stage in the Planô.

if you adhere to the fatalist or quasi-fatalist biblical interpretation of the whole of history being a game of Sid Meier's Civilization: Earth played by God (and the author seems to do just that) then you might as well just stay home on Election Day because it doesn't matter if we elect JimBob the scandal-free Baptist minister or a Literal Stalin who mass murders Christians. God's Planô always comes through in the end to vanquish the bad guy. the Bible is pretty explicit about the plot armor that the Church is given but they still worry.

Stronk Serb
October 12th, 2016, 10:06 AM
Is there any actual evidence that he sexually assaulted anyone?

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 10:31 AM
Trump's gimmick is showmanship - he has been in front of cameras most of his adult life and it's very obvious to most people that his blustering "I'M VERY RICH" is a ploy for free publicity at the expense of an equally tone-teaf media. compare his seemingly arrogant campaign strut to footage of him in one-on-one interviews throughout the years and you can see for yourself that his actual personality is far more subdued and businesslike with no sign of a God complex.
"No, I believe people like sex a lot," Trump said. "People like you, people like me." [in interview]

The guys past is replete with sexual excesses, from losing his virginity at 14, to his affair, to appearing in soft porn flicks, to the controversies raised in the Trump Tapes - at the least, those were fantasies about sexual assault and then there's the coveting of another man's wife, to the revelations from his conversations on the Howard Stern show - in particular, creeping around his beauty pageants backstage whilst the models were getting changed, but also admitting to threesomes and extra-martial sex.

I think this plays in his favor (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/a-playboy-for-president.html) when one concedes that he's speaking to an increasingly secular and sex-liberal audience. He personifies the alpha-male and there's a lot of people, exhausted of their religious faiths, who will flock to that. I'm also not claiming that Trump being sex liberal is a bad thing - Clinton, JFK, etc. - but if I am a Christian, it really wouldn't sit comfortably with me.

I find it interesting that the author chose to bring up King David, the guy who had another guy bumped off so he could rail his wife.
It was actually Sean Hannity who brought up the compression to King David, in defense of Trump and ChristinaityToday are rather claiming that it's a ridiculous comparison.

Though, it notes that terrible events unfolded on King David for the sins he committed.

if you adhere to the fatalist or quasi-fatalist biblical interpretation of the whole of history being a game of Sid Meier's Civilization: Earth played by God (and the author seems to do just that) then you might as well just stay home on Election Day because it doesn't matter if we elect JimBob the scandal-free Baptist minister or a Literal Stalin who mass murders Christians. God's Plan™ always comes through in the end to vanquish the bad guy. the Bible is pretty explicit about the plot armor that the Church is given but they still worry.
His argument is rather that Trump substitutes his own ego and hedonistic image for that of god, which is idolatry and thus a sin. His point then is not that god will strike him down in accordance with his plan - he seems to hold that both our kingdom and gods are independent with brief exceptions - but rather that god will judge us in our worship of our own earthly concerns to the extent that we ally ourselves with a morally unrepentant sinner.

Is there any actual evidence that he sexually assaulted anyone?
I'm open to believing he's a complete bullshitter who just happens to fantasize about assaulting women, too.

Though, combined with women coming out with similar narratives - including at least one police report that I am aware of, his confessions seems rather damning.

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 11:12 AM
The acts in 50 Shades of Grey are consensual (if outside our usual sexual norms) so this is a false equivalence (for the name of the logical fallacy being invoked).

Nonetheless that someone fantasizes about rape does not make it follow that they desire to be raped or sexually assaulted (this is a non-sequitur to the extent that I'm afraid generalisation fallacies don't even count for it).

You also seem to be committing the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc though being as Fifty Shades of Grey was released years after Trump's remarks, and BDSM didn't enter the lens of popular culture until then, it's more likely that in blaming women for their own assaults and rapes, you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You obviously haven't read the same thing that I have, as proven by your statement of it being consensual, so whatever you have to say is, frankly, irrelevant.

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 11:21 AM
You obviously haven't read the same thing that I have, as proven by your statement of it being consensual, so whatever you have to say is, frankly, irrelevant.
This logical fallacy is called the fallacy of composition. That I might be incorrect with regards to one to claim is no remark on whether I might be correct or incorrect on other claims.

Nonetheless, I am correct that in the acts of BDSM that occurred in FSoG consent was consistently offered. In some cases it is rather thin and I agree that the novel offers a poor depiction of BDSM practices - though, where consent is thin and she is harmed, she always cries afterwards implicating the situation in moral wrong-doing - but consent was consistently offered.

Feel free to highlight examples where this was not the case though. Not that this is relevant at all - as I highlighted in my last post.

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 11:29 AM
This logical fallacy is called the fallacy of composition. That I might be incorrect with regards to one to claim is no remark on whether I might be correct or incorrect on other claims.

Nonetheless, I am correct that in the acts of BDSM that occurred in FSoG consent was consistently offered. In some cases it is rather thin and I agree that the novel offers a poor depiction of BDSM practices - though, where consent is thin and she is harmed, she always cries afterwards implicating the situation in moral wrong-doing - but consent was consistently offered.

Feel free to highlight examples where this was not the case though. Not that this is relevant at all - as I highlighted in my last post.

Very well. I believe this was near the end of the book. Anastasia had just attempted to leave Christian and is at her house. It is then that he shows up unannounced. She tries to look for an escape but is unable to do anything before her traps her on her bed. She's clearly kicking him off and saying no when he tells her that if she cries out for help, he will gag her. So he undresses her against her will and gets on with it. She consents halfway through, of course. But it doesn't change the fact that she still had no choice and she did not consent at first.

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 11:47 AM
NSFW content below.

Very well. I believe this was near the end of the book. Anastasia had just attempted to leave Christian and is at her house. It is then that he shows up unannounced. She tries to look for an escape but is unable to do anything before her traps her on her bed. She's clearly kicking him off and saying no when he tells her that if she cries out for help, he will gag her. So he undresses her against her will and gets on with it. She consents halfway through, of course. But it doesn't change the fact that she still had no choice and she did not consent at first.
I have never heard the book recounted back to me like that and when I decided to scan through the closing chapters of the book such a scene never appeared.

He also never gags her at a single point in the book because there's no non-verbal safeword. If you search the book you'll find the word gag is used four times, once in reference to her gag reflex, twice in a scene where he does threaten to gag her but doesn't, and in one of the emails towards the end of the book where he claims that " if/when I do gag you, we’ll discuss it" and then precedes to mention, on that note:

... in Dom/sub relationships it is the sub that has all the power. That’s you. I’ll repeat this – you are the one with all the power. Not I. In the boathouse you said no. I can’t touch you if you say no – that’s why we have an agreement – what you will and won’t do. If we try things and you don’t like them, we can revise the agreement. It’s up to you – not me. And if you don’t want to be bound and gagged in a crate, then it won’t happen.

FSOG, Chapter 22.

Ergo, it doesn't encourage non-consensual sex in its discussions of BDSM either. Like I said, it does a poor portrayal, Grey is obviously abusive in other ways.

----

Though, again, I am unsure of the relevance of this discussion.

Flapjack
October 12th, 2016, 11:49 AM
I hate to be that guy...

but women are whining about Trump's sexual assault history while simultaneously buying copies of 50 Shades and other novels that portray rape in a romantic way. I'm not seeing the logic.Do I really have to explain the difference between sexual assault and women buying a book they want?

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 11:52 AM
NSFW content below.


I have never heard the book recounted back to me like that and when I decided to scan through the closing chapters of the book such a scene never appeared.

He also never gags her at a single point in the book because there's no non-verbal safeword. If you search the book you'll find the word gag is used four times, once in reference to her gag reflex, twice in a scene where he does threaten to gag her but doesn't, and in one of the emails towards the end of the book where he claims that " if/when I do gag you, weíll discuss it" and then precedes to mention, on that note:

... in Dom/sub relationships it is the sub that has all the power. Thatís you. Iíll repeat this Ė you are the one with all the power. Not I. In the boathouse you said no. I canít touch you if you say no Ė thatís why we have an agreement Ė what you will and wonít do. If we try things and you donít like them, we can revise the agreement. Itís up to you Ė not me. And if you donít want to be bound and gagged in a crate, then it wonít happen.

FSOG, Chapter 22.

Ergo, it doesn't encourage non-consensual sex in its discussions of BDSM either. Like I said, it does a poor portrayal, Grey is obviously abusive in other ways.

----

Though, again, I am unsure of the relevance of this discussion.

The original point is that women are making such a big deal out of some things that Trump is saying.. when they too fantasize about being in an unhealthy relationship.

Do I really have to explain the difference between sexual assault and women buying a book they want?

Please explain the hypocrisy.



Please refrain from double posting. Click the edit button, next time. -Hideous

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 11:57 AM
The original point is that women are making such a big deal out of some things that Trump is saying.. when they too fantasize about being in an unhealthy relationship.
There's nothing necessarily unhealthy about BDSM relationships.

Furthermore, the is a sharp contrast between BDSM and sexual assault insofar as the former still requires consent. It was Trump's complete lack of respect for consent, and thus the reduction of other human beings to objects of his whims - their de-humanisation, that is so disgusting.

But, like I said, that people might fantasize about these things does not infer that people want these things to actually happen to them or other people. I'm sure we have all had dreams that we wouldn't want to participate in. That, and the other logical fallacies I noted in your posting.

Flapjack
October 12th, 2016, 12:00 PM
when they too fantasize about being in an unhealthy relationship.
How do a few women's fantasies justify sexual assault? Do you think the women wanted it?
Please explain the hypocrisy.
Okayyy -_-

Right sexual assault is
Sexual assault is a sexual act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity) in which a person is coerced (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion) or physically forced to engage against their will, or a non-consensual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent) sexual touching of a person. Sexual assault is a form of sexual violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence), and it includes rape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_penetration) or drug facilitated sexual assault (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_facilitated_sexual_assault)), groping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groping), forced kissing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing),[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] child sexual abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse), or the torture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) of the person in a sexual manner.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault#cite_note-justice.gov-3)
This is bad. It is also important to note that allegations of rape have been made of rape against Trump too.

Now for a women buying 50 shades of grey... there is no issue with that? She wants the book, she buys it she reads it.

How would you like it if a guy grabbed your dick and forced himself on you and justified it because you like explicit books.

Wanna see hypocrisy? here is some.
nrioe2A1PXE

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 12:03 PM
There's nothing necessarily unhealthy about BDSM relationships.

Furthermore, the is a sharp contrast between BDSM and sexual assault insofar as the former still requires consent. It was Trump's complete lack of respect for consent, and thus the reduction of other human beings to objects of his whims - their de-humanisation, that is so disgusting.

But, like I said, that people might fantasize about these things does not infer that people want these things to actually happen to them or other people. I'm sure we have all had dreams that we wouldn't want to participate in. That, and the other logical fallacies I noted in your posting.

There is nothing unhealthy about BDSM relationships, you're right. Just it seems that people read things like Grey and think they know everything about it, which is a thorn in my side.

While Trump does not respect consent, the only thing that separates him from the characters that girl fantasize over is that Trump isn't attractive.

I've never bought into the whole "fantasy does not equal reality." Never understood it. Probably never will. After all, does fantasizing not mean you wouldn't mind it happening?

How do a few women's fantasies justify sexual assault? Do you think the women wanted it?

Okayyy -_-

Right sexual assault is
This is bad. It is also important to note that allegations of rape have been made of rape against Trump too.

Now for a women buying 50 shades of grey... there is no issue with that? She wants the book, she buys it she reads it.

How would you like it if a guy grabbed your dick and forced himself on you and justified it because you like explicit books.

Wanna see hypocrisy? here is some.
nrioe2A1PXE

I'm not defending Trump's past.

And if by chance I was into guys, and I fantasized about the situations presented in those books, and the guy in question was successful and very good looking, yes, I would have wanted it. But I'm not into guys nor am I necessarily the submissive, sick in the head, type.



Please refrain from double posting. Click the edit button, next time. -Hideous

Flapjack
October 12th, 2016, 12:11 PM
I'm not defending Trump's past.

And if by chance I was into guys, and I fantasized about the situations presented in those books, and the guy in question was successful and very good looking, yes, I would have wanted it. But I'm not into guys nor am I necessarily the submissive, sick in the head, type.
Okayyy so you're not defending Trump just sexual assault...

Ya know if the victim wanted it... it wouldn't be sexual assault!

Please enlighten me, how does being sexually submissive make you sick in the head?

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 12:14 PM
Okayyy so you're not defending Trump just sexual assault...

Ya know if the victim wanted it... it wouldn't be sexual assault!

Please enlighten me, how does being sexually submissive make you sick in the head?

I'm not defending sexual assault either. I hate the crap out of it, that's why I started this in the first place.

Not really a matter of wanting it, more like one of liking it. You can like it without originally wanting it. And, yes, I should have said "liked it' instead of "wanting it." Misspoke again.

It doesn't make you sick in the head when it's to a healthy amount.

Flapjack
October 12th, 2016, 12:15 PM
I'm not defending sexual assault either. I hate the crap out of it, that's why I started this in the first place.

Not really a matter of wanting it, more like one of liking it. You can like it without originally wanting it.

It doesn't make you sick in the head when it's to a healthy amount.
If you are against sexual assault then why make the comment about some women fantasising about it?

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 12:17 PM
If you are against sexual assault then why make the comment about some women fantasising about it?

Because I'm against rape fantasy in general.

Flapjack
October 12th, 2016, 12:19 PM
Because I'm against rape fantasy in general.
But why bring that up when we're talking about a perverted old man sexually assaulting women and as far as I am aware, none of them even had a rape fantasy. This is no relevance and as long as people do not actually rape, they can fantasise about whatever they want.

phuckphace
October 12th, 2016, 12:24 PM
"No, I believe people like sex a lot," Trump said. "People like you, people like me." [in interview]

The guys past is replete with sexual excesses, from losing his virginity at 14, to his affair, to appearing in soft porn flicks, to the controversies raised in the Trump Tapes - at the least, those were fantasies about sexual assault and then there's the coveting of another man's wife, to the revelations from his conversations on the Howard Stern show - in particular, creeping around his beauty pageants backstage whilst the models were getting changed, but also admitting to threesomes and extra-martial sex.

yeah. I can't exactly pass judgment on this personally because I'm a degenerate myself - but in case it wasn't clear in my last post I can certainly understand why the more traditional voters are turned off by Trump's sex-positivity (lol).

I think this plays in his favor (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/a-playboy-for-president.html) when one concedes that he's speaking to an increasingly secular and sex-liberal audience. He personifies the alpha-male and there's a lot of people, exhausted of their religious faiths, who will flock to that. I'm also not claiming that Trump being sex liberal is a bad thing - Clinton, JFK, etc. - but if I am a Christian, it really wouldn't sit comfortably with me.

I think his right-wing critics often don't take into consideration that Trump's campaign is explicitly populist, which by definition is distinct from the soft-spoken, morally upright traditional conservatism they've come to expect from their Republican candidates, and then the purity spiraling starts. the Right does this a lot, ranging from "Does Trump read the Bible enough to be Presidential?" on the tradcon end to "Are gas chambers too humane for Jews?" on the other.

His argument is rather that Trump substitutes his own ego and hedonistic image for that of god, which is idolatry and thus a sin. His point then is not that god will strike him down in accordance with his plan - he seems to hold that both our kingdom and gods are independent with brief exceptions - but rather that god will judge us in our worship of our own earthly concerns to the extent that we ally ourselves with a morally unrepentant sinner.

from my own agnostic atheist perspective, we've got a morally unrepentant sinner on one side whose interests happen to align roughly with our own, and another morally unrepentant sinner on the other whose major goal is to appoint justices and other people in high positions who are openly hostile to tradcon values. again, the issue is not that they object to Trump's personal immorality, but rather that they don't see that the Great Realignment 2k16 is much bigger than Trump and has far longer lasting implications for the tide of politics. I think it's about perspective - Christians lost the culture war a long time ago and when given a chance to reverse the trend, they balk.

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 12:51 PM
Just it seems that people read things like Grey and think they know everything about it, which is a thorn in my side.
I agree here, since FSoG is a really poor depiction of BDSM relationships.

While Trump does not respect consent, the only thing that separates him from the characters that girl fantasize over is that Trump isn't attractive.
No, it's that the character in question respects consent.

Though, I am skeptical any significant number of readers fantasize about him, but it's difficult to claim either direction when we don't have survey-data on the matter.

After all, does fantasizing not mean you wouldn't mind it happening?
Not necessarily. In this case in particular there's a major difference between fantasizing about rape in the comfort of ones own home - where one can pull the plug on such thoughts at a single moment - and having your very life thrust into the hands of another with no possibility of control.

I think his right-wing critics often don't take into consideration that Trump's campaign is explicitly populist, which by definition is distinct from the soft-spoken, morally upright traditional conservatism they've come to expect from their Republican candidates, and then the purity spiraling starts.
The Left have their own version of this. You see it in particular with the far-left - but the extent to which Clinton has had to cater to Sander's supporters hasn't left me too happy. Nonetheless, sex and sex-politics has always been at the dead-center of the Evangelical movement and that's quite a bit different to the usual purity-signalling you see candidates engage in. Mr and Mrs Willis aren't voting Republican for the tax break on the income they don't earn, or as a tribute to white cultural grievances, they are voting Republican because they shudder at the thought their own kids engaging in the sort of raunchiness that Trump does.

Which brings us to the question I was going to make a thread about. It seems as if there might be a shift from social conservatism to cultural conservatism within the Republicans - and Ryanite small government politics is dead - so what does that mean for the Evangelicals that at the moment make up significant numbers of the party. I believe there was a poll out today where Trump only leads with them by one percent or so. The Evangelical friends I have all seem quite disgusted with him, too.

I do wonder if there will be a more centrist re-orientation in the social policy of the Democrats since Latinos (an expanding segment of their electoral base) are disproportionately conservative, and it seems like there might be a whole load of Evangelicals up for grabs. Probably not.

from my own agnostic atheist perspective, we've got a morally unrepentant sinner on one side whose interests happen to align roughly with our own, and another morally unrepentant sinner on the other whose major goal is to appoint justices and other people in high positions who are openly hostile to tradcon values.
Well, yes, and throughout this campaign I have never pointed skepticism towards your own support for Trump.

Though reminder#74691 that FreeTrade is great.

... but rather that they don't see that the Great Realignment 2k16 is much bigger than Trump and has far longer lasting implications for the tide of politics.
I nonetheless can entirely understand the reasons that Evangelicals might not be too keen to bring along their children to Moriah here.

Flapjack
October 13th, 2016, 01:28 AM
Just as I had predicted:
UFEiCnrzFRk

Vlerchan
October 13th, 2016, 02:40 AM
It's in fact been four women - one of which is a reporter and wrote it first person.

Then there has been a number of Miss States who alleged he did creep around dressing rooms - including for the teen pageant - and a subset of them allege sexual harassment

Then there's the sleazy comment (on-video) he made about a ten year old girl.

---

Clinton's campaign is probably doing the noble thing and not flogging this. I think it's unethical to use victims of sexual assault or sex crimes in general as political pawns - the fact that it will probably result in a crisis of confidence in victims of assault amongst partisan supporters (cue: VT in a moment or two) is going to do awful harm.

Flapjack
October 13th, 2016, 09:43 AM
Along with the rape allegations from his ex-wife and this (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3444797&postcount=46) the sicko known as Donald Trump also "Inspected" Underage Girls In Miss Teen USA Dressing Room.
AaYKn7_bFiE

Paraxiom
October 13th, 2016, 02:18 PM
Why would the country be 'doomed' if Hilary wins?

She's hardly free from questionable acts/alignments/corruption either.

She is the better choice between her and Trump though, if you want to take the more predictable (and not more entertaining) route.


So, absurd generalisations, once again, revealed to be absurd generalisations.

Says a lot about a lot of things really.


Typical leftish arguments based on dumb generalisations, not impressed.

Colour me atypical.



I've been largely absent recently, but it does seem ironic that you are all dismissing the Clintons' actual actions against women 20 years ago as fine, yet Trump's talk about women from 10 years ago as being inexcusable. Admit it, you love the double standard.

Whatever about the actions of the Clintons (which I am mostly ignorant of but open to learning about), it doesn't excuse the actions of Trump.


sex scandals involving famous people tend to be uncovered and publicized widely - the fact that these unsubstantiated rumors remain more or less confined to the Internet is proof that they're likely just rumors. news outlets generally don't risk publishing allegations of this caliber unless there's significant evidence of guilt, otherwise the famous person in question sees "X IS A RAPIST", makes a quick phone call to their attorney and wins big in a defamation suit.

I fully agree with the ability to stir up stories through the internet, but I'm more confident that there is something Trump has done along the lines of what has been accused, or whatever similar. It wouldn't surprise me.


this is what happened to Ted Cruz, himself a lawyer - he really was dicking several prominent women and after it got leaked and published, he couldn't sue anybody for libel because the accusations were true and there was plenty of proof.

Interesting that this has not been covered as much (from what I know anyway), which could go along with what you say below.


this is last-resort flailing by petty, obsessive ankle-biters who can't stand the fact that we're winning.

I feel like a significant proportion of media is actually (at least subconsciously) panicking with the ramp up of responses to what Trump has done and is doing, I grant that. Nevertheless I don't see Trump in any innocent angle at all.

As for if 'you all' are winning, I'm more lost now than anything by being caught between a huge flow of info one way saying that Clinton is soaring past Trump, and another flow the other way saying that Trump is soaring past Clinton. However, I feel that Clinton is increasingly more likely going to 'win' (unfortunately, for my own reasons), but don't hold me on that.


The liberals do this over and over again whenever Clinton starts losing, and every-single-time they are desperately grabbing for air. This video was probably found a while ago and they kept it 'til last weekend because Trump crushed Clinton in the first debate and came out ahead on almost every poll.

Trump is now going to start to pull ahead again and right before the 3rd debate Liberals will pull another stunt.

"The liberals/Liberals"

Generalisations perhaps?


theology isn't my strong suit, but the author of the article seems to suffer the same shortcomings as most of Trump's other critics - it's a combination of tone-deafness and inability or unwillingness to parse the nuances.

I know I'm in unique times when theology becomes an arguably relevant factor here. :D


Trump's gimmick is showmanship - he has been in front of cameras most of his adult life and it's very obvious to most people that his blustering "I'M VERY RICH" is a ploy for free publicity at the expense of an equally tone-teaf media. compare his seemingly arrogant campaign strut to footage of him in one-on-one interviews throughout the years and you can see for yourself that his actual personality is far more subdued and businesslike with no sign of a God complex.

That he is powerful with getting across to people is known, but saying that this ability is only a mask and not his actual personality is more debatable.


yeah. I can't exactly pass judgment on this personally because I'm a degenerate myself [...]

The humility is strong with you here...

________

All I can say as such is that a fiery month lies ahead.

Flapjack
October 13th, 2016, 02:53 PM
She's hardly free from questionable acts/alignments/corruption either.

She is the better choice between her and Trump though, if you want to take the more predictable (and not more entertaining) route.
Yeah she is corrupt as fuck but tbh I see her as just a continuation of Obama, not the best but nothing drastic or disastrous. This election is so frustration when you see how close Bernie got :'(

Drewboyy
October 13th, 2016, 03:03 PM
"The liberals/Liberals"

Generalisations perhaps?


Mmm, I don't see anyone else besides them doing it so

Vlerchan
October 13th, 2016, 03:13 PM
Mmm, I don't see anyone else besides them doing it so
Edit: Lets make this easier, point out the most recent generalization I made. Please, and thank you.

Paraxiom
October 13th, 2016, 04:06 PM
Yeah she is corrupt as fuck but tbh I see her as just a continuation of Obama, not the best but nothing drastic or disastrous. This election is so frustration when you see how close Bernie got :'(

Bernie has an unjustly quiet exit, I feel. As for the rest, I'm more sharply not okay with her - can a disaster not be seen as a maintained continuity of a political/etc environment?


Mmm, I don't see anyone else besides them doing it so

Not all liberals are against Trump, and not all anti-Trump people are liberals.

Vlerchan
October 13th, 2016, 05:55 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CureykKWEAU0pvG.jpg
From 1992, more creepy Trump interactions with underage girls.

Unclear if he is making a joke, but there's precedent as cited earlier.

Drewboyy
October 13th, 2016, 09:06 PM
Not all liberals are against Trump, and not all anti-Trump people are liberals.

I'm saying the liberals are the only ones grabbing for water after they slipped in the shower. It's definitely not wrong to say a group against someone/another group is fighting for themselves.

Edit: Lets make this easier, point out the most recent generalization I made. Please, and thank you.

"The Left have their own version of this. You see it in particular with the far-left - but the extent to which Clinton has had to cater to Sander's supporters hasn't left me too happy. Nonetheless, sex and sex-politics has always been at the dead-center of the Evangelical movement and that's quite a bit different to the usual purity-signalling you see candidates engage in. Mr and Mrs Willis aren't voting Republican for the tax break on the income they don't earn, or as a tribute to white cultural grievances, they are voting Republican because they shudder at the thought their own kids engaging in the sort of raunchiness that Trump does.

Which brings us to the question I was going to make a thread about. It seems as if there might be a shift from social conservatism to cultural conservatism within the Republicans - and Ryanite small government politics is dead - so what does that mean for the Evangelicals that at the moment make up significant numbers of the party. I believe there was a poll out today where Trump only leads with them by one percent or so. The Evangelical friends I have all seem quite disgusted with him, too.

I do wonder if there will be a more centrist re-orientation in the social policy of the Democrats since Latinos (an expanding segment of their electoral base) are disproportionately conservative, and it seems like there might be a whole load of Evangelicals up for grabs. Probably not."

Vlerchan
October 14th, 2016, 01:48 AM
Drewboyy: Generalising about a population and discussing a voting block on the basis of their typical characteristics - with implicit recognition there's deviance - are quite different things. But thank you for helping make it clear to people that this line of attack is faulty or at least based on your own specific misunderstandings of what a generalisation is.

Flapjack
October 14th, 2016, 07:08 AM
I now consider Trump a real sexual predator
TvMN7I5PZAQ
mRMEDdtStUE
'inspecting' under-age naked girls and all the accusations of him forcing himself upon women and the attempted rape. He is a sexual predator.

Vlerchan
October 14th, 2016, 02:42 PM
And, we have another two women coming forward with allegations of sexual assault.

That Zervos seems to have retained a prominent case lawyer means that one in particular is probably going to be pressed.

PlasmaHam
October 14th, 2016, 02:58 PM
I now consider Trump a real sexual predator

and all the accusations of him forcing himself upon women and the attempted rape. He is a sexual predator.
I would believe these claims a bit more if the women actually reported them when they happened. Rape culture today, man, I just saw this on the news of some woman making up rape allegations (http://louderwithcrowder.com/disturbing-woman-makes-fake-rape-kidnapping-story/), so I don't see how it is implausible the same could be done by women who don't want Trump in office.

Vlerchan
October 14th, 2016, 03:15 PM
I would believe these claims a bit more if the women actually reported them when they happened.
The report rate on rape is very low and it's estimates that the report rate on sexual assault is much lower so that it's taken this sort of momentum against Trump (on this front) for them to feel comfortable bringing them forward shouldn't be used to discount their claims (they won't be specifically targeted, and have a level of public support they probably couldn't have counted on beforehand). There's a valid fear, in the case of Trump regardless, that given his economic clout he would be capable of putting them on trial [edit: in the media] given allegations and ruining their lives (he's trying that with the - just looking for fame, angle):

Recall the Cosby allegations. Some of those report incidence occurring 50 years prior to their reporting and there's considerable disparities between all the alleged timing of the incidents and the time when women went forward (typically 20 years). It was the same in the British case of the child abuser Jimmy Saville. In both cases, once on or two began to be lodged, the floodgates opened. What's happening here matches the sort of precedent when it comes to the case of other alleged celebrity serial-abusers, so it's no argument at all to claim it took them a while to come forward.

[...] so I don't see how it is implausible the same could be done by women who don't want Trump in office.
It's not implausible. But that doesn't mean we should just be straight-up denouncing these claims as a number of Trump surrogates are already doing - and the same with just accepting them. Sexual assault is a serious issue and the alleged victims here should be granted the same sort of respect as one would expect the usual victim of sexual assault to receive. I realize that's difficult because of how partisan this race has become, but the vapid denunciations of women we're seeing need to stop.

I said above that I thought the sort of rhetoric that would erupt from this would hurt sexual assault victims in other cases, and it probably has. That Trump is starting to distance himself from having committed assault in cases where the women weren't good looking - and his supporters cheer it on - is frankly one of the most disgusting parts of this entire campaign.

---

Worth noting that I considered Trump a sleaze irrespective of this, on account of his multiple affairs, Trump tapes, losing his virginity at 14 (in the early 60s!).

Flapjack
October 14th, 2016, 03:32 PM
I would believe these claims a bit more if the women actually reported them when they happened. Rape culture today, man, I just saw this on the news of some woman making up rape allegations (http://louderwithcrowder.com/disturbing-woman-makes-fake-rape-kidnapping-story/), so I don't see how it is implausible the same could be done by women who don't want Trump in office.
So there is audio evidence of Trump saying he forces himself on women, grabs their private parts, he admits he walked into 'inspect' underage naked girls and I believe it was an ex wife that claimed Trump raped her at the time and you want me to ignore all the women coming forward, with similar stories because it is possible they're all made up?

Yeah it is not implausible but don't you think that it is by far most likely? In my mind he is already a sexual predator by bragging about sexually assaulting women and inspecting underage naked girls. Also funny how Mitt Romney didn't have this flood of people come in claiming he was a pervert that sexually assaulted them?

Women don't come forward of the time because of how powerful Trump was, Trump knew this and taken advantage of them. Just like Roger Ailes.

Trump is a deplorable man whether or not you believe he is a pervert and a sexual predator and his horrific polices and uncontrollable flip-flopping already made him unelectable. This is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Vlerchan
October 14th, 2016, 05:15 PM
"Trump crowd in NC now yelling "lock her up" in reference to the women accusing him of touching them without consent."

Reid J. Epstein (WSJ) (https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/787002242293374976)
Stay classy, Trump supporters.

---

Update: McGillivery - one of Trump's accusers - has reported that she plans to leave the country after facing backlash from Trump supporters in recent days - she explicitly notes that she js fearing for her life. For those curious as to why people don't report sexual assault, fear of just this is probably why.

The promised witness that would undermine Leed's accusation seems to be a seriel fraudster with a taste for media attention. So I'm a bit 'Eh' about taking his word when combined with his actual statement.

Drewboyy
October 14th, 2016, 09:31 PM
Drewboyy: Generalising about a population and discussing a voting block on the basis of their typical characteristics - with implicit recognition there's deviance - are quite different things. But thank you for helping make it clear to people that this line of attack is faulty or at least based on your own specific misunderstandings of what a generalisation is.

Regardless of how specific you want to define generalization (which I just use to make conversation easier and doesn't change any point anyone was making) a very large portion of this specific population does attack in the same way, multiple times, in different instances.

phuckphace
October 15th, 2016, 09:21 AM
on the topic of Evangelical Christians who are put off by Trump's past, Franklin Graham made this statement on Facebook:

A lot of people are slamming evangelicals for supposedly giving Donald J. Trump a pass. That's simply not true. No one is giving him a pass. I'm certainly not, and I've not met an evangelical yet who condones his language or inexcusable behavior from over a decade ago. However, he has apologized to his wife, his family, and to the American people for this. He has taken full responsibility. This election isn't about Donald Trump's behavior from 11 years ago or Hillary Clinton's recent missing emails, lies, and false statements. This election is about the Supreme Court and the justices that the next president will nominate. Evangelicals are going to have to decide which candidate they trust to nominate men and women to the court who will defend the constitution and support religious freedoms. My prayer is that Christians will not be deceived by the liberal media about what is at stake for future generations.

money quote in bold, emphasis mine. this guy knows what's up.

the Grahams have always stood out to me from the rest of the Evangelicals in that they seem very genuine on a personal level and aren't just another long-running "accept Christ as your Savior and win a cruise!" scam amongst many others. I've actually met Franklin Graham once at a church event when I was 10 or 11 and he's definitely not the kind of guy who gives you the Jim Jones vibe.

the Reich's got your back, fam.

Vlerchan
October 15th, 2016, 09:31 AM
this guy knows what's up.
Is this not achievable through voting Republican down-ticket and then having them obstruct Clinton when she attempts to nominate a 'liberal' justice. You won't get someone as conservative as Scalia but a centrist swing-vote is probably both better for constitutional-democracy and has a low likelihood of enabling the radical changes that would be required to strip the freedoms that are most commonly-cited as in danger.

phuckphace
October 15th, 2016, 10:24 AM
Is this not achievable through voting Republican down-ticket and then having them obstruct Clinton when she attempts to nominate a 'liberal' justice. You won't get someone as conservative as Scalia but a centrist swing-vote is probably both better for constitutional-democracy and has a low likelihood of enabling the radical changes that would be required to strip the freedoms that are most commonly-cited as in danger.

from their perspective the stakes are probably too high now - Obama has already been successful in appointing Kagan and Sotomayor and they can't really afford even a couple more of the left-ideologues that Clinton will find ways of getting nominated. naturally if you're an evangelical your first choice is a Scalia in the White House, but barring that, electing a president with a low chance of appointing someone who despises you is better than letting your enemies win and then trying to fight a losing battle with them.

and of course they're right to be concerned - I can see this from outside the situation as an agnostic atheist that a court full of Kagans (Hillary's ideal setup) would predictably rule against tradcon values every chance they get. it doesn't need to be some kind of super-radical, amend-the-Constitution-to-make-Christianity-illegal kind of thing - it only needs to establish clear precedents through rulings that AMERICA IS A IDEA FOUNDED ON EQUALITY AND FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE, which of course means gay board-member quotas for Chic-fil-A, a blanket ban on parental home-schooling + heavy fines and lawsuits if you don't lock step with the current century.

ThisBougieLife
October 15th, 2016, 11:04 AM
The Supreme Court nominations are the primary reason I will be voting for Hillary. So it certainly makes sense that Evangelicals would have similar priorities. I don't think either president will make a whole lot of short term difference, but their Supreme Court nominations can affect the direction of this nation for generations to come. And I want to have a hand in setting that direction.

Though the whole concept of demanding a denunciation is often hypocritical to begin with. It's no different than everyone pouncing on moderate Muslims to denounce everything unsavory a fellow Muslim does. And of course they do denounce them, but people hear what they want to hear (i.e. Evangelical hypocrisy or Muslim complacency).

phuckphace
October 15th, 2016, 12:27 PM
1789: "This Friday last, a Couple of Sodomitical Wretches were taken in the very Act, and after given the judgement of Guilty and condemned to Death, were hung upon the Gallows in Fairmarket Square to the Approval of the great Crowds."

2016: "Ay carrumba, eet says een Constitution 'all eses is created iguales.' I rule in favor of tax on meedle class to pay AIDS medication to los gays. Freedom ees what makes dees country great!"

Uniquemind
October 15th, 2016, 01:54 PM
Yes when Trump says "I'll be dating her in 10 years can you believe that?" In reference to a 10 year old girl he just past going down an escalator.

I guess she's be 20, if she truly wanted to date Trump, but the fact he's treating girls like sexual-beauty-lust investments (buy low sell high)...idk everything is transactional to him and that really bothers me regarding how he views women.

---

Let's also not forget that Christianity does NOT promote Freedom in the sense the U.S. Constitution does, and so when you have groups who are trying to influence law from Christian values or any religious values for that matter you will have conflicts, because it oppresses those wanting to practice non-Christian acts aka: sin.

You should not criminalize acts that any faith considers sins, except by coincidence due to scientific or other pragmatic contextual reasons.

PlasmaHam
October 15th, 2016, 10:24 PM
Let's also not forget that Christianity does NOT promote Freedom in the sense the U.S. Constitution does, and so when you have groups who are trying to influence law from Christian values or any religious values for that matter you will have conflicts, because it oppresses those wanting to practice non-Christian acts aka: sin.
How exactly did you came to that conclusion, being that most scholars say the Constitution was founded very much on Christian values? I would be very curious of Constitutional freedoms that are in obvious disagreement with Christian values. Separation of church and state? Christian value. All people being created equal? Christian value.

Everybody pushes law from their basis of morality, that morality being based in religion is not important. You are pushing your form of morality, I'm pushing my form of morality. Everyone is pushing their idea of what morality actually is. We should not single out moralities with religious basis as being any less than moralities of a secular basis. I could call that discrimination, a word leftists love to use. Any group attempting to influence law from their moral values will have conflicts, because it oppresses those wanting to practice acts that goes against that form of morality, aka: immorality.

Update: McGillivery - one of Trump's accusers - has reported that she plans to leave the country after facing backlash from Trump supporters in recent days - she explicitly notes that she js fearing for her life. For those curious as to why people don't report sexual assault, fear of just this is probably why.
You know, despite what rape culture promoters like to say, the best way to deal with sexual assault cases is not to start blabbing about it publicly. If this person actually experienced such as she claimed, then why didn't she go to the police and actual file a complaint? As far as I know, that is far more safer and less anonymous than sharing it on social media or news outlets, and if she actually had legal backing then going to the police first would be the most logical choice.

If she would of reported it when and if it happened through the correct legal channels, then she wouldn't of ever "feared for her life." If she actually reported this when it happened, then the evidence would be fresher, her story would make more sense, and she would have been able to keep this a much more silent affair. Unlike Clinton, I haven't heard of Trump killing people he didn't like, and Trump supporters didn't exist whenever this allegation took place. I seriously doubt she has any real threats on her life, just more attempts to demean Trump supporter' character. I see no logical reason that she would decide now, years later, that she would just now report this, unless of course, this is just political maneuvering from a candidate who has no qualms about lieing about rape, which makes much more logical sense.

Flapjack
October 16th, 2016, 03:54 PM
7Rmui9PpIX8

ThisBougieLife
October 16th, 2016, 07:51 PM
There are often questions of "why are the allegations coming out now?" whenever public figures are accused of sexual assault, but part of the issue is that the victims often do not think they will be believed, or do not want to risk being up against such a powerful figure, but when one comes out publicly, others are now motivated to share their allegations as well. I'm not saying that means they must be true, but it definitely does not mean they must be false.

Uniquemind
October 16th, 2016, 09:23 PM
How exactly did you came to that conclusion, being that most scholars say the Constitution was founded very much on Christian values? I would be very curious of Constitutional freedoms that are in obvious disagreement with Christian values. Separation of church and state? Christian value. All people being created equal? Christian value.

Everybody pushes law from their basis of morality, that morality being based in religion is not important. You are pushing your form of morality, I'm pushing my form of morality. Everyone is pushing their idea of what morality actually is. We should not single out moralities with religious basis as being any less than moralities of a secular basis. I could call that discrimination, a word leftists love to use. Any group attempting to influence law from their moral values will have conflicts, because it oppresses those wanting to practice acts that goes against that form of morality, aka: immorality.


You know, despite what rape culture promoters like to say, the best way to deal with sexual assault cases is not to start blabbing about it publicly. If this person actually experienced such as she claimed, then why didn't she go to the police and actual file a complaint? As far as I know, that is far more safer and less anonymous than sharing it on social media or news outlets, and if she actually had legal backing then going to the police first would be the most logical choice.

If she would of reported it when and if it happened through the correct legal channels, then she wouldn't of ever "feared for her life." If she actually reported this when it happened, then the evidence would be fresher, her story would make more sense, and she would have been able to keep this a much more silent affair. Unlike Clinton, I haven't heard of Trump killing people he didn't like, and Trump supporters didn't exist whenever this allegation took place. I seriously doubt she has any real threats on her life, just more attempts to demean Trump supporter' character. I see no logical reason that she would decide now, years later, that she would just now report this, unless of course, this is just political maneuvering from a candidate who has no qualms about lieing about rape, which makes much more logical sense.

They are inspired by Christian values but they did not hold up to it precisely rather it promotes freedom even to choose other faiths within the country's borders.

That's a quick reason but not the full one.

PlasmaHam
October 28th, 2016, 12:30 PM
They are inspired by Christian values but they did not hold up to it precisely rather it promotes freedom even to choose other faiths within the country's borders.

That's a quick reason but not the full one.
So it promotes Christian values. Christianity supports the freedom of religion, there is no Biblical teachings that Christians ought to attack and oppress non-Christians.

But that is not the reason I came here, instead, here is another Podesta e-mail from Wikileaks.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33933
This is a quote from an e-mail from Ron Klain, Chief of Staff of Joe Biden, to the Clinton campaign. 4. WJC Issues

a. Is his(Bill Clinton's) conduct relevant to your campaign?

b. You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who
accused him?

c. Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your
husband and his allies?

d. How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?
Even the Democrats don't see a difference between Clinton and Cosby:P. Lets talk about that for a change.

Uniquemind
October 28th, 2016, 03:06 PM
So it promotes Christian values. Christianity supports the freedom of religion, there is no Biblical teachings that Christians ought to attack and oppress non-Christians.

But that is not the reason I came here, instead, here is another Podesta e-mail from Wikileaks.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33933
This is a quote from an e-mail from Ron Klain, Chief of Staff of Joe Biden, to the Clinton campaign.
Even the Democrats don't see a difference between Clinton and Cosby:P. Lets talk about that for a change.

Yeah it's still a scandal on the left side too.

But to also respond to you: That's a very modern cherry-picked version of what Christianity supports now.

1. Spanish Inquisition

2. Crusades

3. The early religious colonies of New England were also pretty strict and failed to deny human nature drift toward sin, and failed their efforts to make a "city upon a hill". (They did practice death penalty to a huge extent in response to sinful behavior, under the Christian label, again lines of biblical scripture inspired them)


Even now, technically the bible threatens hell and converts by fear to non-believers and those of other faiths. IF you want to talk more PM me.