Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1580 on: October 28, 2016, 07:38:36 PM »
Well, fair enough. If you're interested in employing Trump's tactics by yourselves, be my guest. I'll simply continue to point it out to you and explain over and over how absolutely bonkers that is.

Nah I'm pretty sure you can read them in the correct order and still see that he's talking about groping women[...]
Right, let's give you a chance to explain yourself, then. Here's what you have quoted (additional emphasis mine):
He did say he does it without consent though (emphasis mine).

Quote
I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything

So, either you think that kissing is groping, or you decided to apply a later statement ("Grab them by the pussy") retroactively to "I don't even wait." Now, having known you for a while I assume you know that kissing is not in fact groping, so that leaves me with the conclusion that you have read the statements in reverse. If neither of these is correct, could you present an alternative explanation?

Quote
TRUMP: I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

BUSH: Whatever you want.

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

Trump is saying that he can do anything to women without asking, because they let him do it because he's "a star." That includes the two acts mentioned in this exchange, kissing, and the groping. Are you implying that only the first is related to him being able to do anything, and the second sentence juxtaposed with that exact same sentiment is somehow talking about something completely different? That makes no sense, and you know it.

EDIT: Here's the thing: if he is talking about consensually fingering women, then why the heck is he bragging about it to Billy Bush? That's not unexpected or unusual. What's unusual is the point of the story he's telling: That his fame allows him to get away with the things he does to women. You can do anything when you're a star, etc. If he's suddenly talking about fingering women in the bedroom, it makes zero sense to say that that's something he is able to do in this context. Everybody can do that, not only "stars."
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 08:28:35 PM by trekky0623 »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1581 on: October 28, 2016, 08:51:30 PM »
The initial sentiment of "holy interpretation, Batman" only grows stronger as you talk. Since Trump clarified the meaning of what he said on tape, and no evidence to date suggests that he lied, we shouldn't take your book report seriously. That would be a presumption of guilt. If new evidence emerges, fair enough. How about we wait for that and stop slandering people in the meantime?

Trump is saying that he can do anything to women without asking
Yes, but not that he does do it.

Here's the thing: if he is talking about consensually fingering women, then why the heck is he bragging about it to Billy Bush? That's not unexpected or unusual. What's unusual is the point of the story he's telling: That his fame allows him to get away with the things he does to women.
Or that the fame means he can obtain consent more easily than others. If you're so committed to the idea of the presumption of innocence (by your own admission, you're not trying to threaten it, no siree Bob!), why do you jump to the most demeaning conclusion possible?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1582 on: October 28, 2016, 10:19:06 PM »
I don't think you understand what slander is. Saying what I think about Donald Trump and what I think about the evidence being presented is not slander, and as a proponent of free speech I'd think you'd realize that. My own thoughts on the matter also pose no threat to the presumption of innocence in the justice system or to Trump's well being, so climb down off your high horse preaching about justice and innocence. No one is suggesting Trump should be treated unfairly in the legal system.

Now, when you have:

  • Jill Harth proclaiming that Donald Trump was "maneuvering his hand up plaintiff's thigh in an attempt to touch plaintiff's private parts," and "touching of plaintiff's private parts in an act constituting attempted 'rape'" in 1997,
  • Cathy Heller recounting that in 1997 Donald Trump grabbed her kissed her in February,
  • Temple Taggart McDowell claiming that in 1997 Trump embraced and kissed her to such an extent she brought chaperones with her when she thought she was going to be alone with him in May,
  • Cassandra Searles saying that in 2013 Trump fondled her and groped her butt at the Miss USA pageant in June,
  • and then in October 2016, having a tape be released of Donald Trump in 2005 claiming that he (a) kisses women without permission, (b) does so because he is rich and famous and women "let him do it", and (c) also "grabs them by the pussy", or if you're extremely generous, could "grab them by the pussy" if he wanted to,
then yeah, I'm going to think Donald Trump probably fondled at least some women without their consent. Unless we are to presume that the four women above made up similar stories of Donald Trump's behavior at different times which all also happened to be eerily similar to how Donald Trump describes himself in a tape released after their accusations had already gone public. In my mind, Donald Trump groping some women is a lot more plausible.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1583 on: October 28, 2016, 11:20:31 PM »
I don't think you understand what slander is.
nice meme bro

You made an untrue statement in an attempt to damage somebody's reputation (which you're now attempting to rephrase and rationalise over and over). It had nothing to do with what you think - it was a factually incorrect account of what's contained in a recording. At best, you can get pedantic and point out that your statement wasn't spoken, but many definitions do not posit that as a strict requirement.

as a proponent of free speech I'd think you'd realize that.
Your freedom of speech does not in any way change how appalling your eagerness to ignore morality when it suits you is, and the disastrous consequences it would have if your attitude became more commonplace. It also in no way interferes with my freedom of pointing these things out. You're free to promote fascism if you want to (well, in some countries you are), but that doesn't make fascism any less shit, and people are likely to tell you that. Freely.

The rest of your post is a classic SJW "accusations have been made and therefore listen and believe" ramble, and I don't really have anything to say about it other than once again calling it distasteful.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 11:32:51 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Rama Set

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1584 on: October 29, 2016, 05:03:07 AM »
He also admitted to entering the Miss Teen America dressing rooms unannounced and that his position as owner of the pageant allowed him to get away with peeping on teenage girls.  It really is not a stretch to think that Donald Trump would feel entitled enough, due to this wealth and celebrity, that he could do what he wanted with women, consenting or not.  I agree with Trekky: I am not saying he did it, but there is enough on the table to consider it as a serious allegation.


*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1586 on: October 29, 2016, 06:18:18 AM »
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/exclusive-comey-memo-to-fbi-staffers-says-election-timing-required-disclosure-renewed-probe.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/28/499770889/anthony-weiner-investigation-leads-fbi-back-to-clinton-email-server-case

From what I'm reading...

"We here at the FBI saw something that may be Clinton related and in order to suck Republican dick in case Trump wins, we've released this memo."

Purely a political stunt.  He literally has nothing useful to add other than "It's being reopened".  It could simply be a single e-mail from Clinton's e-mail server to Anthony Weiner saying "WTF are you doing sending dick pics?" but they wont' tell us. 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.


*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1588 on: October 29, 2016, 06:42:12 AM »
Trump: The FBI are horrible, corrupt, and in the pockets of Obama and Clinton.... Unless they hurt Clinton, then they aren't.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1589 on: October 29, 2016, 01:32:41 PM »
You made an untrue statement in an attempt to damage somebody's reputation (which you're now attempting to rephrase and rationalise over and over). It had nothing to do with what you think - it was a factually incorrect account of what's contained in a recording. At best, you can get pedantic and point out that your statement wasn't spoken, but many definitions do not posit that as a strict requirement.

All right. In a very generous interpretation of what he said on tape, then no, Donald Trump is not admitting that he did, in fact, grope women without their consent. He is saying he could do it, and that, according to him, women would let him do it. He is also saying, without any doubt, that he has at least kissed women without knowing whether they consented or not (which in itself could be considered sexual assault depending on the circumstances, but whatever). Fair enough?

Now, that statement that he could, if he wanted to, grope women without their consent, combined with allegations that predate the publication of his own statements, leads me to believe that some of those allegations are probably true.

Your freedom of speech does not in any way change how appalling your eagerness to ignore morality when it suits you is, and the disastrous consequences it would have if your attitude became more commonplace. It also in no way interferes with my freedom of pointing these things out. You're free to promote fascism if you want to (well, in some countries you are), but that doesn't make fascism any less shit, and people are likely to tell you that. Freely.

The rest of your post is a classic SJW "accusations have been made and therefore listen and believe" ramble, and I don't really have anything to say about it other than once again calling it distasteful.

I am not "listening and believing" anything when the women's own alleged perpetrator is on tape saying he could do the things these women claim if he wanted to. I know you find it endless fun to beat those anti-SJW war drums so fervently, but there's a big difference between automatically believing anyone accusing someone of rape and believing some of Trump's accusers given the timing of their allegations and his own words.

EDIT: a word
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 01:36:06 PM by trekky0623 »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1590 on: October 29, 2016, 01:54:43 PM »
Fair enough?
Not in the slightest. Your interpretation involves inventing new definitions for words and reading words right-to-left (Did you know that if you listen to the American anthem in reverse it actually says TRUMP 2K16? QED the Founding Fathers love Trump!). Mine relies on presumption of innocence until evidence arises. If the accusers whose word you take at face value have some evidence, they should present it and let us get on with it. My interpretation is not generous at all, whilst yours requires making stuff up for it to even conceivably work.

Did you think lying again would make you seem less ethically questionable? Because it didn't work.

I am not "listening and believing" anything when the women's own alleged perpetrator is on tape saying he could do the things these women claim if he wanted to.
I could probably get away with some crimes if I wanted to. Let's go with the cliché of "hacking". I was once accused of that by a local charity I was working for, and now (j'accuse!) there's a written record of me saying that I could probably do it if I wanted to. And (mon Dieu!) the accusations predate my statement! That means I'm probably guilty, right? Right?!



SPOILERS: Wrong. The accusation was never taken to court, and the organisation's internal disciplinary process concluded that I deserved an apology for the moronic assertion
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 02:23:46 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1591 on: October 29, 2016, 02:58:52 PM »

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1592 on: October 29, 2016, 03:31:54 PM »
Quote from: parsifal
computer words
Quote from: sexwarrior
more computer words

i did read those, btw, and thank you.  good eli5 10/10 would let you explain computers to me again.

i am fairly persuaded that it seems silly for any of the voting machines to not generate paper receipts.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1593 on: October 29, 2016, 04:15:27 PM »
Fair enough?
Not in the slightest. Your interpretation involves inventing new definitions for words and reading words right-to-left (Did you know that if you listen to the American anthem in reverse it actually says TRUMP 2K16? QED the Founding Fathers love Trump!). Mine relies on presumption of innocence until evidence arises. If the accusers whose word you take at face value have some evidence, they should present it and let us get on with it. My interpretation is not generous at all, whilst yours requires making stuff up for it to even conceivably work.

Did you think lying again would make you seem less ethically questionable? Because it didn't work.

I am not "listening and believing" anything when the women's own alleged perpetrator is on tape saying he could do the things these women claim if he wanted to.
I could probably get away with some crimes if I wanted to. Let's go with the cliché of "hacking". I was once accused of that by a local charity I was working for, and now (j'accuse!) there's a written record of me saying that I could probably do it if I wanted to. And (mon Dieu!) the accusations predate my statement! That means I'm probably guilty, right? Right?!



SPOILERS: Wrong. The accusation was never taken to court, and the organisation's internal disciplinary process concluded that I deserved an apology for the moronic assertion
Rape cases or sexual assault cases are extremely hard to prove or even provide evidence for.  By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice unless they have physical evidence or an eye witness of some credibility.  What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word? 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1594 on: October 29, 2016, 04:38:44 PM »
By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice [...]
On the contrary, I insist that they do seek justice instead of going on TV and presenting their 20-years-old claims to everyone but the judicial system.

What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word? 
Law enforcement are pretty good at securing evidence - probably better than you or me. That's why you talk to them.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 04:41:17 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1595 on: October 29, 2016, 05:00:51 PM »
By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice [...]
On the contrary, I insist that they do seek justice instead of going on TV and presenting their 20-years-old claims to everyone but the judicial system.

What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word? 
Law enforcement are pretty good at securing evidence - probably better than you or me. That's why you talk to them.


Is there evidence to show they did not go to the police first?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1596 on: October 29, 2016, 05:15:32 PM »
Is there evidence to show they did not go to the police first?
Given that Trump is Trump, any charges pressed would be pretty high profile - I doubt we'd have to speak in hypotheticals. I mean, they're digging out tapes from a decade ago where he's bragging about how macho he is. Do you really think we'd miss something this major?

But okay, it's fair to assume that we have no idea, at least formally speaking. Even then, you need to consider the context of this conversation.

  • If they did report it and charges were successfully pressed, presenting the evidence you need to shut me up should be very easy. The burden's on the other crowd, not on me.
  • If they did report it and nothing happened, then every single accusation I've made of Trekky and Saddam being sinister have just been amplified tenfold. After all, we no longer have to presume innocence - we have established innocence. Both Trekky and Saddam made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in ignoring or defying the justice system. In this case, they would have been lying.
  • If they didn't report it, we're back to my previous question.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 05:19:41 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1597 on: October 29, 2016, 05:33:07 PM »
SexWarrior, none of what you're saying makes any sense.  This has nothing to do with fascism, slander, bypassing the justice system, or anything else you're preaching about up there on your soapbox (we're talking about whether or not we should vote for this man to be president, nothing more drastic than that), and your claim that Trump couldn't have meant "I don't even wait" to be referring to "Grab them by the pussy" because the "pussy" comment came after the "wait" line simply flies in the face of reality.  Sure, maybe it would be nice if everyone neatly organized what they said into nice little paragraphs where they listed all their supporting points first, summarized them with an overall topic sentence, and then promptly moved on to the next subject, but of course that doesn't happen in real life.  Consider, for example, someone saying, "Grab your jacket, it's raining out.  Bring an umbrella too."  Do you think the suggestion that the listener should bring an umbrella is unrelated to the fact that it's raining outside?  Would it only make sense that they'd want them to bring an umbrella because of the rain if they had said, "Grab a jacket and an umbrella, it's raining outside"?

Also, if your interpretation of how Trump's words aren't incriminating is correct - and not just correct, but apparently very clearly and unambiguously correct to the degree where anyone who claims to disagree with you is being dishonest - don't you think that this would be something that Trump or his campaign/defenders would have brought up?  Trump apologized for what he said and insisted it didn't represent who he was anymore, but he still took a major hit in the polls and endured an enormous amount of criticism over this.  I can't imagine him not responding with something like "If you listen to the recording, you'll find that I never claimed I groped women," if he or his people felt that was an arguable point (let alone one as obviously true as you think it is), nor can I imagine him or his people missing such a point, especially if, again, it's as obvious as you claim.  Is this all just some weird joke/troll from you?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1598 on: October 29, 2016, 05:44:15 PM »
SexWarrior, none of what you're saying makes any sense.
nice meme bro

Instead of saying "This makes no sense and is totally not like what you said", you may want to consider responding to some of the points made. Otherwise, you're just not very convincing.

don't you think that this would be something that Trump or his campaign/defenders would have brought up?
I do, and he has. He did it quite poorly, but he made it clear that he doesn't do this things (and that Bill does do them).

and not just correct, but apparently very clearly and unambiguously correct to the degree where anyone who claims to disagree with you is being dishonest
Oh, you're welcome to disagree. Just try not to lie while you're at it.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 05:48:59 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1599 on: October 29, 2016, 05:59:29 PM »
in fairness sw, your indigence would be more convincing if it were evenly applied.  i don't recall seeing you this perturbed over anyone calling hillary a crook and a criminal.

besides, isn't slander a crime for which one is presumed innocent until proven guilty?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.