If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
He's on the ropes, but Hillary's got a bit of a glass jaw. If she gets sick again, or has a truly damaging leak...
I don't think she can, what with the catheter and all.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Question: Trump has had hundreds of rallys without the sniffing being a thing. What is he doing that the debate mics are constantly picking it up? It's not relevant to the presidency but it is distracting.
How could anyone think Trump won that? He can't answer a DIRECT QUESTION, he goes off on a tangent, shows he's illiterate on the topics he was asked about, and acted like a goddamn bully.
How could anyone think Trump won that? He can't answer a DIRECT QUESTION, he goes off on a tangent, shows he's illiterate on the topics he was asked about, and acted like a goddamn bully.
Oh yeah, lies through his teeth.
He's done.
I didn't see this debate yet, but if it's anything like the Pence/Kaine show, it's bizarre through the looking glass stuff. Pence is widely regarded as having won that debate because he blatantly, BUT CAMLY, lied about Trump again and again, while Kane had trouble containing himself in the face of such astounding falsehoods.
So demeanour, and how well one did against expectations has become far more important than substance. What a candidate says is far less important than how they say it. So we are at the point that expectations are so low for Trump that as long as he didn't dribble, wet himself, or hit anybody, he won.
My god, what have we become?
(
Last edited by Paco500; Oct 10, 2016 at 05:53 AM.
Reason: typo- content not changed.)
How could anyone think Trump won that? He can't answer a DIRECT QUESTION, he goes off on a tangent, shows he's illiterate on the topics he was asked about, and acted like a goddamn bully.
Oh yeah, lies through his teeth.
He's done.
Because debates are judged on optics far more than substance.
I guess I give a slight edge to Trump. It helped most of the unhinged stuff was gotten out of the way early.
He didn't crater, so he fulfilled his victory condition.
Clinton was calm, but didn't deliver a knockout, or even pull off a good rope-a-dope, which was her victory condition.
He clearly won, she looked befuddled and zoned-out several times. 70-30 Trump.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Clinton's win percentage keeps ticking up on 538 polls-only, if slower right now, but now-cast has plateaued.
I have to wonder about the logic, though. Win percentage right now mirrors the win percentage in the tipping-point state (CO still) which is fine until you remember the whole bit about correlated states. If Clinton currently has three independent paths to 270 (the west with CO and NV, the south with NC, and the midwest with OH - plus FL which is probably correlated with at least one of the others), shouldn't her win percentage be the chance that she loses all three of those groups?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
He clearly won, she looked befuddled and zoned-out several times. 70-30 Trump.
What analysis I have seen indicate that the debate started disastrously for Trump, but that he was even or slightly better for the later part of it. Clinton was clearly waiting for him to mess up, so she didn't land any knockout punches.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Jeff Session isn't sure grabbing genitals is sexual assault. He was AL AG
I wanted to see what Sessions said before I responded. In doing so, I had the opportunity to re-read the Trump quote.
The (literal) jerkoff fantasy Trump had lost himself in went like this.
Starts kissing random hottie.
She's cool with it. Then he grabs the pussy.
If I'm going to be forced to make a binary assessment, either that is describing sexual assault or it isn't, I'd be forced to say it isn't.
If he was told to stop and continued anyway, that would be sexual assault, however it's (ahem) explicitly not the scenario being discussed. These were examples of what women let him do. That they let him do it is his entire premise.
Thanks for taking me down that rabbit hole. I feel dirty now.
Don't blame me, I'm not in the minority with that opinion. Largely that just goes to show how awful Hillary was, not how great Trump is. They're both the shittiest candidates both parties have ever seen, unfortunately foisted upon us in the same election.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm not sure I agree. Your logic implies consenting to/enjoying a kiss gives the man carte Blanche.
Gives the man carte blanche until the woman says no.
Unless we're discussing someone unable to give proper consent, isn't that basically the way it works? I mean, carte blanche covers a lot of territory. What's under discussion here is specifically the "kissing to hand down the pants" transition. Is this something which cannot be attempted without explicit consent?
Have all the times that attempt was made, the woman has said no, and the man has complied, in fact been instances of sexual assault?
Gives the man carte blanche until the woman says no.
Unless we're discussing someone unable to give proper consent, isn't that basically the way it works? I mean, carte blanche covers a lot of territory. What's under discussion here is specifically the "kissing to hand down the pants" transition. Is this something which cannot be attempted without explicit consent?
Have all the times that attempt was made, the woman has said no, and the man has complied, in fact been instances of sexual assault?
More serious post to follow if I visit on a keyboard.
Trump totally won the debate by side stepping every single question and never providing legitimate answers.
It is why the moderators got flustered and had to return to him several times to reiterate the original question. It wasn't that they were biased but rather that Trump was trying to evade the topics at his discretion and they were trying to do their jobs. As a result Trump got the lions share of speaking time.
However, the debate did nothing to help him in the polls because he did nothing to repair the damage from the Billy Bush tape. It may have actually made the perception of him as a sexual predator become more ingrained by being dismissive of the video, physically stalking Clinton on stage, and being so adamant to deflect the discussion to Bill.
Even with the debate he's still in free fall with no plan to correct.
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
Gives the man carte blanche until the woman says no.
Unless we're discussing someone unable to give proper consent, isn't that basically the way it works? I mean, carte blanche covers a lot of territory. What's under discussion here is specifically the "kissing to hand down the pants" transition. Is this something which cannot be attempted without explicit consent?
Have all the times that attempt was made, the woman has said no, and the man has complied, in fact been instances of sexual assault?
I suppose this is where it falls to how one interprets "grab them by the pussy." To me it doesn't sound like some suave transition to genital stimulation, but an overt 'snatch' (pun unintended). I might also opine that I think there's a difference between doing it in mutual concert and this aggressive manner where he seems to more 'take' what he wants until stopped. Plus there's that entire concept of affirmative consent. You could argue he's 'reading the room' when he makes his move, except "you can do anything" implies he is indifferent to their primary response.
I do wonder if there's a demographic divide on his actions here. Not in the typical sense either. I'm thinking age, money, and gender will be the big divides.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Now I know why I thought of this:
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
My read is he's saying you can get anyway with anything (much like his shoot someone on 5th avenue comment). The question is whether he is alluding to his fame being an aphrodisiac or a shield that makes him immune to normal societal conventions.
Do you think that poll would have relevance to what the actual answer is, or it would be interesting to confirm the results would match national election polls?
Do you think that poll would have relevance to what the actual answer is, or it would be interesting to confirm the results would match national election polls?
Or something else?
Yes it would have relevance to the actual answer. It's how laws change.
I'll reiterate, in case I haven't been clear, the reason I see it as assault is the use of the word 'grab'.
Top