2024 Presidential Election thread

[LaceyLou]

13 hours ago, smr-nj said:

I believe he thinks if it’s not witnessed or corroborated, then we must assume it never happened.  🙂  

…  because, you know, proof. **
 

(** every woman knows what this feels like.  Our word means nothing)

Or worse, we're told that we should feel flattered. "Why can't you women just take it as a compliment???

Plus IIRC, he also bragged about being able to walk in on half-naked pageant contestants, who couldn't say anything because he owned it. 

[LaceyLou]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I didn't realize until recent years how many women have been victims of sexual assualt.  We probably all know people who have been through it.  The vast majority of men have never sexually assaulted anyone, so most of the attacks have been made by serial predators.  Because most men don't do stuff like that, they might find it hard to believe how common it is, so they think the stories are made up.    

Sadly, we're only just beginning to realize this, and it's only because most of us never came forward and were ashamed to tell anybody.

It's very sad to hear how often it happens to little kids-and one common thing I've heard from people is that the abuser is, more often than not, a 'pillar of the community' who can do no wrong. It's one of the few times I honestly wish I was as alone as I used to feel.

[Kacie]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I didn't realize until recent years how many women have been victims of sexual assualt.  We probably all know people who have been through it.  The vast majority of men have never sexually assaulted anyone, so most of the attacks have been made by serial predators.  Because most men don't do stuff like that, they might find it hard to believe how common it is, so they think the stories are made up.    

I don't think your view is accurate as a woman who was assaulted as a child.  They're men in power, men in your neighborhood, at your church, your coworker, your health care provider, a guy you went to school with, possibly even a family member,  or the former President of the United States.  Too many have the idea that "they" are these crazy slime balls that  hide in the shadows and attack strangers. I'm sure there are those, but many more who blend in to every day life that you'd never suspect. That's how they do what they do.   Unfortunately, too many like 1776 who think there's a time limit on it, or that you have to "prove it", or that they're being vulgar or manly or locker room talk.    

[Tiger337]

47 minutes ago, Kacie said:

I don't think your view is accurate as a woman who was assaulted as a child.  They're men in power, men in your neighborhood, at your church, your coworker, your health care provider, a guy you went to school with, possibly even a family member,  or the former President of the United States.  Too many have the idea that "they" are these crazy slime balls that  hide in the shadows and attack strangers. I'm sure there are those, but many more who blend in to every day life that you'd never suspect. That's how they do what they do.   Unfortunately, too many like 1776 who think there's a time limit on it, or that you have to "prove it", or that they're being vulgar or manly or locker room talk.    

So, what percentage of men are you talking about?  Women thinking that large percentages of men are running around looking for opportunities to sexually assault women is part of the reason why many men won't take them seriously which is unfortunate.  I never said that sexual harrassers are crazy people hiding in the shadows.  My assumption is the opposite of that.  My impression is that sexual predators tend to be somewhat attractive and artificially charming and that is how they get access to women in the first place.  This is also how they get into positions of power.  I am rarely surprised by the types of man who are revealed to be predators.  

 

Edited Saturday at 04:58 PM by Tiger337

[chasfh]

31 minutes ago, Kacie said:

I don't think your view is accurate as a woman who was assaulted as a child.  They're men in power, men in your neighborhood, at your church, your coworker, your health care provider, a guy you went to school with, possibly even a family member,  or the former President of the United States.  Too many have the idea that "they" are these crazy slime balls that  hide in the shadows and attack strangers. I'm sure there are those, but many more who blend in to every day life that you'd never suspect. That's how they do what they do.   Unfortunately, too many like 1776 who think there's a time limit on it, or that you have to "prove it", or that they're being vulgar or manly or locker room talk.    

Yeah, I was a little nonplussed reading that the "vast majority" of men never sexually assaulted, therefore it must all be due to serial abusers. I don't think I can buy that at face value. I don't know if we can get at the numbers for that, but I'm pretty sure it's higher than most men would believe, although probably not higher than most women believe.

I also think there's a line at which a woman would definitely consider an act as being sexual assault, but the man in the incident would honestly not consider it so. I think such incidents would serve to increase the estimate on percentage of men who have engaged in assault. A good example might be a butt squeeze in public view. Sure, there's no blood or other fluids being spilled, so a man might be surprised to learn a butt squeeze would be considered assault, but it must certainly considered by a woman so as an unwelcome public assault on her body and her dignity, particularly by a stranger or by a mere casual acquaintance. I don't know where along the continuum of "the women is being too sensitive" versus "the man is an  insensitive clod" such acts would fall, but I would give the benefit of the doubt to the woman in every case. It's her body, so she gets to say what is assault versus what is no big deal.

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I also think there's a line at which a woman would definitely consider an act as being sexual assault, but the man in the incident would honestly not consider it so. I think such incidents would serve to increase the estimate on percentage of men who have engaged in assault. A good example might be a butt squeeze in public view. Sure, there's no blood or other fluids being spilled, so a man might be surprised to learn a butt squeeze would be considered assault, but it must certainly considered by a woman so as an unwelcome public assault on her body and her dignity, particularly by a stranger or by a mere casual acquaintance. I don't know where along the continuum of "the women is being too sensitive" versus "the man is an  insensitive clod" such acts would fall, but I would give the benefit of the doubt to the woman in every case. It's her body, so she gets to say what is assault versus what is no big deal.

I don't think most men think that a butt squeeze from a stranger or casual acquaintance is OK.   

 

[chasfh]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

I don't think most men think that a butt squeeze from a stranger or casual acquaintance is OK.   

 

You also think the vast majority of men have never sexual assaulted, so who knows.

[Tiger337]

Just now, chasfh said:

You also think the vast majority of men have never sexual assaulted, so who knows.

What do you think the percentage is?  We might agree.  I don't know.  

[chasfh]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

What do you think the percentage is?  We might agree.  I don't know.  

I don't know. I don't think everyone can even agree on exactly what constitutes sexual assault, so I can't hazard a guess on numbers. After all, you just said a butt squeeze is not "OK", but you also avoided labeling it sexual assault, which I suggested it might be considered by some people—I would think more by women than by men.

I'm just saying I would bet money that whatever the definition is, the percentage is probably much higher than most men believe it is, and probably not much, if any, higher than what women believe it is.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

I don't know. I don't think everyone can even agree on exactly what constitutes sexual assault, so I can't hazard a guess on numbers. After all, you just said a butt squeeze is not "OK", but you also avoided labeling it sexual assault, which I suggested it might be considered by some people—I would think more by women than by men.

I'm just saying I would bet money that whatever the definition is, the percentage is probably much higher than most men believe it is, and probably not much, if any, higher than what women believe it is.

Where did I say that a butt squze in public is not sexual assault?  It would certainly be sexual assault if done by a stranger or casual acquaintance.  If it's done by a couple who enjoy who showing physical affection in public, it might not be.  It depends on the individuals. Is an amourous hug and kiss in public always sexual assault?

[chasfh]

This is a commercial for a local congressional race, not for president, but I wanted to share it here because it's so darn good. I can't extract only the video from the Insta page for the candidate, but I hope you click through to watch it:

https://www.instagram.com/mrvanforcongress/reel/DA_wgmaSFKn/

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Where did I say that a butt squze in public is not sexual assault?  It would certainly be sexual assault if done by a stranger or casual acquaintance.  If it's done by a couple who enjoy who showing physical affection in public, it might not be.  It depends on the individuals. Is an amourous hug and kiss in public always sexual assault?

You didn't say it wasn't, and you didn't say it was. You didn't contemplate its status as sexual assault either way.

In any event, this wasn't meant as a way to hammer you, but rather to demonstrate how people view certain acts as entailing different levels of severity, even in subtle ways such as mild language laundering.

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You didn't say it wasn't, and you didn't say it was. You didn't contemplate its status as sexual assault either way.

In any event, this wasn't meant as a way to hammer you, but rather to demonstrate how people view certain acts as entailing different levels of severity, even in subtle ways such as mild language laundering.

I said that most men know it's not OK in response to your assertion than men think it's OK.  There was no reason for me to use the term sexual assault there.  It was implied.

 

[mtutiger]

The article is behind a paywall for me, but this seems sort of revealing in terms of how the Trump campaign sees the lay of the land in GA

[chasfh]

25 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I said that most men know it's not OK in response to your assertion than men think it's OK.  There was no reason for me to use the term sexual assault there.  It was implied.

 

I never even came close to even implying men think butt squeezing is OK, let alone "asserting" as much. I didn't even use the word "OK" in my post!

Well, everyone can see exactly who said what up the page here, so I'm just going to stop here and just leave it up to the people to review and decide, if they care to.

[1776]

2 hours ago, Kacie said:

 Unfortunately, too many like 1776 who think there's a time limit on it, or that you have to "prove it", or that they're being vulgar or manly or locker room talk.    

You’re misrepresenting what I said and you know it. I never said anything about a “time limit” or statute of limitations. But you do what you do.

However, I will continue to question the TIMING of the allegation-two different things. 

 

[Tiger337]

18 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I never even came close to even implying men think butt squeezing is OK, let alone "asserting" as much. I didn't even use the word "OK" in my post!

Well, everyone can see exactly who said what up the page here, so I'm just going to stop here and just leave it up to the people to review and decide, if they care to.

I am pretty sure nobody cares. Not even Gehringer!

[Mr.TaterSalad]

 

He's so stupid. I find it comical and scary. Comical because he has such a rudimentary knowledge of even the most basic things, yet pretends to be such an expert. Scary, because this guy will possibly lead our country again and make life altering decisions for people.

Yeah, we know, trees get water through their roots system. We knew that in 2nd grade. 

[LaceyLou]

59 minutes ago, 1776 said:

You’re misrepresenting what I said and you know it. I never said anything about a “time limit” or statute of limitations. But you do what you do.

However, I will continue to question the TIMING of the allegation-two different things. 

 

The timing makes sense to somebody who is concerned that a predator is about to be put into a position of power, especially a position in which said predator will be evaluating policies concerning sexual assault and consequences of sexual assault on victims. 

 

 

[Tigerbomb13]

Nothing he says makes any logical sense 

[Edman85]

7 hours ago, 1776 said:

If you’re referring to me? … this was a news item this week. Nobody “dragged” this story up. 

Yes... and the dragging was going on and on about how women make this stuff up is ignorant for a ton of reasons, not the least of which that so many are getting those memories dragged up when people do that.

I have zero tolerance for that, and frankly I'm in "insanity later" mode over the fact that Trump even has a ****ing chance here. Trump is a menace and the people who enable and pump up his propaganda aren't worthy of any ****ing respect at all.

[gehringer_2]

53 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Nothing he says makes any logical sense 

It's a great diversion though - sort of the ultimate straw man argument, because the key point that is glossed over is that the underlying premise is of the controversy is completely false. Even if voting procedures were somehow changed improperly (and the courts ruled they were not) there isn't a shred of evidence or logic to support the idea that that in any way should favor one side or the other. If your guy is more popular, he's still gonna win if more people vote.

That's the beauty of straw man arguments of course - get the conversation pinned on some point where you think there is room to argue and use the noise around that aspect of the argument to obscure that none it makes any difference in the real world anyway.

Edited Saturday at 08:54 PM by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

19 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Trump is a menace and the people who enable and pump up his propaganda aren't worthy of any ****ing respect at all.

Trump himself isn't worth any of it either... Or worth the benefit of the doubt that so many people are willing to give.

It's particularly amusing having come of age in a conservative area and in a conservative household during the Clinton impeachment. So many of the people who screamed about moral relativism with respect to Bubba (not without reason), frankly, have lost all credibility during the Trump years; they hem and haw and just have different standards when it comes to their golden calf.

Edited Saturday at 09:11 PM by mtutiger

[smr-nj]

2 hours ago, 1776 said:

You’re misrepresenting what I said and you know it. I never said anything about a “time limit” or statute of limitations. But you do what you do.

However, I will continue to question the TIMING of the allegation-two different things. 

 

My original response to you merely asked if you would even just CONSIDER if it could be true…. you know, immediately after you decided that  the Blasey Ford accusation was just some more lying woman nonsense. 
 

…. But, now I can see that , in no case , are you likely to ever give the “she could possibly be telling the truth” thought any consideration.
 

(copied & pasted from a previous page)

==============================

  On 10/25/2024 at 4:58 PM,  1776 said:

Echoes of Christine Blasey Ford. Same playbook, different year. 
 

Ever entertain the possibility that the accusations could be true? That there’s a life-long pattern?  
======================================

 

And now, I really am done with any further responses from me in this discussion.

[mtutiger]

All I will say is that, despite the fact that he was on tape in the AH Tape describing in vivid detail something that happened involving him, it appears that in the eyes of some, he may have been just telling a story (or, as he framed in 2016, "locker room talk")

I wish I could understand why he deserves the benefit of the doubt on that. He just doesn't, sorry