Duterte puts Chelsa in her place

[CaliCat 3,957]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Somebody can "let you" do something without it being consensual.

 

If you rob someone at gun point, they let you take their money. It's typically not consensual.

 

Consent is not a hard concept.

 

 

Unless you're famous, in which case you can kiss them, and even grab them by their genitals, according to the so-called president. 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't disagree, but my response was to the idea that Trump made some locker room talk that was inappropriate in other settings, but as far as I know has not acted on it.  Bill and Monica engaged in an affair in the Oval Office, but we are told that is ok since Monica said it was consensual.  The point being that Trump is bad for "talk" yet Bill is fine since his partner acquiesced.

I don't think Bill was "fine" for what he did. He had an affair. As someone who strongly believes in marriage, I think that was wrong. He didn't, however, assault Monica. Yes he was in a position of power, and yes in that situation you can "manipulate" women below you. However, Monica has said repeatedly that she chose to be involved. Women can also choose to go after men above them in certain situations, sometimes to help advance themselves. What they both did was wrong.

 

I also agree that, at least by the letter of the law, we have no proof Trump has acted on what he has bragged about. I was just being clear that what he was bragging about WAS in fact sexual assault. Some people even argue that point and say "well he said "they let you do it" which means they were consenting". That is not true. "Letting you" does NOT equal consent. He bragged about sexually assaulting women. We have women claiming he did so, but again you are right that at least legally speaking we have no proof that he has done so.

 

EDIT:

 

As to the original topic of this thread. I fail to see how Duterte mentioning Chelsea's father someone means he "owned" her. She can have a perfectly valid point, and bringing in her father is pretty pointless. She has no control or responsibility for her father.

Edited June 3, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,505]

18 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't think Bill was "fine" for what he did. He had an affair. As someone who strongly believes in marriage, I think that was wrong. He didn't, however, assault Monica. Yes he was in a position of power, and yes in that situation you can "manipulate" women below you. However, Monica has said repeatedly that she chose to be involved. Women can also choose to go after men above them in certain situations, sometimes to help advance themselves. What they both did was wrong.

 

I also agree that, at least by the letter of the law, we have no proof Trump has acted on what he has bragged about. I was just being clear that what he was bragging about WAS in fact sexual assault. Some people even argue that point and say "well he said "they let you do it" which means they were consenting". That is not true. "Letting you" does NOT equal consent. He bragged about sexually assaulting women. We have women claiming he did so, but again you are right that at least legally speaking we have no proof that he has done so.

 

EDIT:

 

As to the original topic of this thread. I fail to see how Duterte mentioning Chelsea's father someone means he "owned" her. She can have a perfectly valid point, and bringing in her father is pretty pointless. She has no control or responsibility for her father.

She may have no control or responsibility for her father, but to my knowledge she has never denounced his actions regarding the Monica affair, or any of the other accusations of actual rape.  As to the affair, I agree, this is not something I would condone in my own life, but that is in fact their decision.

 

I guess I am a little less convinced the whole locker room talk is sexual assault.  Would this be prosecuted as sexual assault against all women in the world, or is there a specific complainant or two?

 

Lastly, I agree, Duterte probably should have left this alone and not made any comments.  We already know of the issues with Bill and the fact that Hillary and Chelsea still stand behind him so-to-speak.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

49 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

probably doesn't help that they think duerte is the bee's knees. i had no idea that speaking out against rape is only something you can do if no one in your immediate family has ever settled a sexual assault case out of court. something tells me that's a straw house, not a glass one.

Straw glass high and puff same thing 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't think Bill was "fine" for what he did. He had an affair. As someone who strongly believes in marriage, I think that was wrong. He didn't, however, assault Monica. Yes he was in a position of power, and yes in that situation you can "manipulate" women below you. However, Monica has said repeatedly that she chose to be involved. Women can also choose to go after men above them in certain situations, sometimes to help advance themselves. What they both did was wrong.

 

I also agree that, at least by the letter of the law, we have no proof Trump has acted on what he has bragged about. I was just being clear that what he was bragging about WAS in fact sexual assault. Some people even argue that point and say "well he said "they let you do it" which means they were consenting". That is not true. "Letting you" does NOT equal consent. He bragged about sexually assaulting women. We have women claiming he did so, but again you are right that at least legally speaking we have no proof that he has done so.

 

EDIT:

 

As to the original topic of this thread. I fail to see how Duterte mentioning Chelsea's father someone means he "owned" her. She can have a perfectly valid point, and bringing in her father is pretty pointless. She has no control or responsibility for her father.

No body ever said he assaulted Monica 

[IAMX 3,055]

42 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't think Bill was "fine" for what he did. He had an affair. As someone who strongly believes in marriage, I think that was wrong. He didn't, however, assault Monica. Yes he was in a position of power, and yes in that situation you can "manipulate" women below you. However, Monica has said repeatedly that she chose to be involved. Women can also choose to go after men above them in certain situations, sometimes to help advance themselves. What they both did was wrong.

 

I also agree that, at least by the letter of the law, we have no proof Trump has acted on what he has bragged about. I was just being clear that what he was bragging about WAS in fact sexual assault. Some people even argue that point and say "well he said "they let you do it" which means they were consenting". That is not true. "Letting you" does NOT equal consent. He bragged about sexually assaulting women. We have women claiming he did so, but again you are right that at least legally speaking we have no proof that he has done so.

 

EDIT:

 

As to the original topic of this thread. I fail to see how Duterte mentioning Chelsea's father someone means he "owned" her. She can have a perfectly valid point, and bringing in her father is pretty pointless. She has no control or responsibility for her father.

I actually agree with the left on the part about moral policing (I don't care whatsoever about Monica fellating him), but when it comes to perjury (not to mention repeated lying to the American people) and obstruction of justice.. I have no leniency. The US is a nation of laws, follow them, change them, or find another country.

Edited June 3, 2017 by IAMX

[spookyturtle 9,465]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't disagree, but my response was to the idea that Trump made some locker room talk that was inappropriate in other settings, but as far as I know has not acted on it.  Bill and Monica engaged in an affair in the Oval Office, but we are told that is ok since Monica said it was consensual.  The point being that Trump is bad for "talk" yet Bill is fine since his partner acquiesced.

They're both predators. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

22 minutes ago, IAMX said:

 I have no leniency. The US is a nation of laws, follow them, change them, or find another country.

Priceless. 

[bcking 3,157]

56 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

She may have no control or responsibility for her father, but to my knowledge she has never denounced his actions regarding the Monica affair, or any of the other accusations of actual rape.  As to the affair, I agree, this is not something I would condone in my own life, but that is in fact their decision.

 

I guess I am a little less convinced the whole locker room talk is sexual assault.  Would this be prosecuted as sexual assault against all women in the world, or is there a specific complainant or two?

 

Lastly, I agree, Duterte probably should have left this alone and not made any comments.  We already know of the issues with Bill and the fact that Hillary and Chelsea still stand behind him so-to-speak.

Again I'm not saying the locker room talk was evidence of actual sexual assaults. Just saying in my mind it is quite clear he was joking about forcing himself on women without them wanting it.

[CaliCat 3,957]

35 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Priceless. 

 

Makes Canada worth of pity. 

[IAMX 3,055]

35 minutes ago, bcking said:

Again I'm not saying the locker room talk was evidence of actual sexual assaults. Just saying in my mind it is quite clear he was joking about forcing himself on women without them wanting it.

And?

 

Clearly the non-existent proof of sexual assaults isn't stopping the left from calling him things like rapist, or someone who committed/advocates sexual assault. 

 

Shouldn't be a surprise this goes hand in hand with the Russia-Trump conspiracies.

 

The left and stupidity tends to go hand in hand. That's what happens when children can't emotionally control themselves.

Edited June 3, 2017 by IAMX

[spookyturtle 9,465]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

 

 

The left and stupidity tends to go hand in hand. That's what happens when children can't emotionally control themselves.

Another gem! Hysterical. Can't control themselves emotionally.