Post by: Little Joe on October 17, 2016, 05:45:20 AM
I know most of my relationships, including the one with my wife, started out with me making advances that may not have been requested. I also believe that if I did not make those unsolicited advances, or if I asked for permission in advance, the relationships would have never even left the ground.
Yeah, I had a few dates where the woman was either the aggressor or at least welcomed the advances. But most of the times, I had to do a little "insisting".
Perhaps times have changed in the past 50 years or so.
Post by: asechrest on October 17, 2016, 05:47:51 AM
Post by: Bob Noel on October 17, 2016, 05:54:06 AM
However, In the real world there are not that many times when two people look at each other and both decide that they are interested. In the real world, someone has to initiate the relationship.
But, that doesn't mean grabbing, etc. is acceptable.
Post by: Little Joe on October 17, 2016, 05:55:03 AM
I'll just go ahead and ask: did you grab her in the crotch or kiss her upon first meeting?First meeting?
Crotch; not right away.
Kiss; often.
"Cop a feel", probably.
Now, answer the question that was asked. Or don't.
Did you ask for permission each step of the way?
May I kiss you?
May I grab your boob?
May I . . .
I submit that if we all follow those steps, we would experience a population reduction. (which may be a good thing).
Post by: Little Joe on October 17, 2016, 05:59:33 AM
There must be a balance somewhere... "no" means "no" and "What part of 'no' do you not understand?"
However, In the real world there are not that many times when two people look at each other and both decide that they are interested. In the real world, someone has to initiate the relationship.
But, that doesn't mean grabbing, etc. is acceptable.
That is a reasonable position, but it is not a real world answer either. Not until human behavior changes substantially. What I mean is that "NO" doesn't always mean "NO". Playing "hard to get" means that "no" is the default answer, regardless of intent. I remember many encounters that went:
NO
NO
no
no
um
um
ok,
yes
yes
YES
YES
MORE
MORE.
I'm sorry if that is not politically correct.
Post by: Bob Noel on October 17, 2016, 06:12:47 AM
Did you ask for permission each step of the way?
Do you mean verbally ask for permission each step?
Of course, that would be ridiculous.
But maybe some would expect a written witnessed notarized contract in place before any physical interaction.
Post by: Little Joe on October 17, 2016, 06:20:13 AM
Do you mean verbally ask for permission each step?Not according to some progressive liberals.
Of course, that would be ridiculous.
But maybe some would expect a written witnessed notarized contract in place before any physical interaction.
Post by: asechrest on October 17, 2016, 06:22:33 AM
First meeting?
Crotch; not right away.
Kiss; often.
"Cop a feel", probably.
Now, answer the question that was asked. Or don't.
Did you ask for permission each step of the way?
May I kiss you?
May I grab your boob?
May I . . .
I submit that if we all follow those steps, we would experience a population reduction. (which may be a good thing).
I assume this thread stems from Trump's remarks. Those are about walking up to a woman you've never met and grabbing their crotch or kissing them. In my opinion the former is never acceptable, and the latter if often deserving of a punch in the face.
Personally, I like to get to the point that the woman wants my sexual advances, before I sexually advance her. Why would I want to begin the relationship doing something she didn't want?
Post by: Little Joe on October 17, 2016, 06:34:37 AM
I assume this thread stems from Trump's remarks. Those are about walking up to a woman you've never met and grabbing their crotch or kissing them. In my opinion the former is never acceptable, and the latter if often deserving of a punch in the face.It has to do with the Hillary campaign reaching back decades to find women who are willing to claim that Trump made unwanted sexual advances on them. Over time, people's perception of what really happened often change, and the change is usually an attempt to justify their own actions. It is a tactic that the left often uses against the enemy (conservatives).
Personally, I like to get to the point that the woman wants my sexual advances, before I sexually advance her. Why would I want to begin the relationship doing something she didn't want?
Post by: asechrest on October 17, 2016, 08:16:51 AM
It has to do with the Hillary campaign reaching back decades to find women who are willing to claim that Trump made unwanted sexual advances on them. Over time, people's perception of what really happened often change, and the change is usually an attempt to justify their own actions. It is a tactic that the left often uses against the enemy (conservatives).
It is a tactic that both sides use against the other. However, in the instant case we have a man who, by his own mouth, did the things these women claim he did. And then he went on national TV and said he never did those things, despite previously saying he did. Now if I was a woman who had my crotch grabbed years ago by this dipshit, it'd rightly burn me up to see him on national TV claiming he never did those things, and I'd be highly motivated to go public just to screw him over.
So maybe you're right. Maybe the Clinton campaign dug up women who were willing to fabricate these instances. But perhaps you're wrong, and Trump did to many women exactly what he said he did.
Post by: Little Joe on October 17, 2016, 08:24:55 AM
So maybe you're right. Maybe the Clinton campaign dug up women who were willing to fabricate these instances. But perhaps you're wrong, and Trump did to many women exactly what he said he did.I'm willing to admit that I don't know. But all the leftists I know are ready and willing to believe the worst about Trump just because someone said so. Yet these same people refuse to admit that Clinton has committed any wrongdoing at all, regardless of the evidence.
Post by: nddons on October 17, 2016, 08:33:48 AM
It is a tactic that both sides use against the other. However, in the instant case we have a man who, by his own mouth, did the things these women claim he did. And then he went on national TV and said he never did those things, despite previously saying he did. Now if I was a woman who had my crotch grabbed years ago by this dipshit, it'd rightly burn me up to see him on national TV claiming he never did those things, and I'd be highly motivated to go public just to screw him over.These alleged things didn't happen in the Mad Men era of the 1960s. This was the 1990s or so - I've been in business during all the years this stuff was alleged to take place.
So maybe you're right. Maybe the Clinton campaign dug up women who were willing to fabricate these instances. But perhaps you're wrong, and Trump did to many women exactly what he said he did.
There were plenty of remedies that these women could have taken, in a contemporaneous manner, just like Bill Clinton's accusers. None of them availed themselves of any possible remedy until 3 weeks before a presidential election.
Pardon me if my bullshit meter is going off the scale.
Post by: acrogimp on October 17, 2016, 08:42:07 AM
These alleged things didn't happen in the Mad Men era of the 1960s. This was the 1990s or so - I've been in business during all the years this stuff was alleged to take place.Anyone who shows up with Gloria fucking Allred in a presser timed for maximum impact in a political campaign (oddly enough ONLY ever against Republicans) be they claiming sexual assault, illegal employment practices, etc., is automatically suspect for me, sorry, this page in the playbook is their last desperate 'Hail Mary' of personal destruction, it is so overused and tattered, because it works, because it is straight out of rules for radicals, use your enemies rules against them - basically find the most repulsive thing you can say, blast it out across the complicit agenda-driven fellow traveller media for maximum damage, and then NOTHING.
There were plenty of remedies that these women could have taken, in a contemporaneous manner, just like Bill Clinton's accusers. None of them availed themselves of any possible remedy until 3 weeks before a presidential election.
Pardon me if my bullshit meter is going off the scale.
These women, whether they were actually victimized as they claim or not, never see anything, they are victimized by Allred and the Dem's and then tossed away like lint out of a clothes dryer.
It is fucking pathetic, predictable but pathetic.
'Gimp
Post by: Mase on October 17, 2016, 09:14:01 AM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 17, 2016, 09:56:58 AM
I've been thinking, of course, of the Trump situation, probably way too much.
I tend to agree with Tammy Bruce as linked in another thread. I'd rather be offended by Trump than left for dead by HRC.
And I tend to agree that women who are silent for 30 years have a whole set of problems they're not dealing with, and are contributing to further dysfunction by not reporting immediately. My belief is that as men and women, we all got to where we are together. It's up to us all to improve things, and since I'm a principled person, I don't take personal sacrifice or danger to be an impediment. I would definitely speak up.
Here's the thing. I remember having all kinds of heated discussions when the Lewinsky thing was the big story. The basic question was whether the President's private behavior mattered. Liberals insisted it didn't. Conservatives insisted it did. Unfortunately, that means, as we have seen, that Conservatives are laid wide open for the attack that they are hypocrites for supporting any candidate with a shade of personal conduct problems.
I'm not sure we'll ever have consensus on that question. Obviously, Democrats have for the most part worshipped Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton despite their known filthy behavior.
I'm still standing with Trump, but mostly because I see him as a roadblock to the train wreck that is Clinton and her cronies both here and abroad.
Post by: Anthony on October 17, 2016, 10:06:08 AM
Here's the thing. I remember having all kinds of heated discussions when the Lewinsky thing was the big story. The basic question was whether the President's private behavior mattered. Liberals insisted it didn't. Conservatives insisted it did. Unfortunately, that means, as we have seen, that Conservatives are laid wide open for the attack that they are hypocrites for supporting any candidate with a shade of personal conduct problems.
Here's the difference between Bill Clinton and Trump. Clinton was PRESIDENT. He opened himself up to blackmail from foreign entities, and others over the sex scandal. He could have been manipulated over the scandal. Trump held no public office. He was and is a private citizen.
Also Bill Clinton LIED UNDER OATH, and to the American people.
Post by: Bob Noel on October 17, 2016, 10:46:15 AM
Also Bill Clinton LIED UNDER OATH, and to the American people.
but he wasn't prosecuted for lying under oath... so, to the liberal, it didn't actually happen
Post by: asechrest on October 17, 2016, 11:19:32 AM
Anyone who shows up with Gloria fucking Allred in a presser timed for maximum impact in a political campaign (oddly enough ONLY ever against Republicans) be they claiming sexual assault, illegal employment practices, etc., is automatically suspect for me, sorry, this page in the playbook is their last desperate 'Hail Mary' of personal destruction, it is so overused and tattered, because it works, because it is straight out of rules for radicals, use your enemies rules against them - basically find the most repulsive thing you can say, blast it out across the complicit agenda-driven fellow traveller media for maximum damage, and then NOTHING.
These women, whether they were actually victimized as they claim or not, never see anything, they are victimized by Allred and the Dem's and then tossed away like lint out of a clothes dryer.
It is fucking pathetic, predictable but pathetic.
'Gimp
You seem heavily invested in Trump, which is unfortunate because he's a bad candidate. I hear your cries of character assassination. And then I remember that we heard from Trump's own mouth that he did these things. And so I wonder, maybe it's not so much Rules for Radicals after all. Maybe I'll take Trump at his word in this case.
Post by: jb1842 on October 17, 2016, 11:31:34 AM
Post by: Gary on October 17, 2016, 12:32:20 PM
Here's the difference between Bill Clinton and Trump. Clinton was PRESIDENT. He opened himself up to blackmail from foreign entities, and others over the sex scandal. He could have been manipulated over the scandal. Trump held no public office. He was and is a private citizen.
So you are good with electing someone just like Bill Clinton to the office of PRESIDENT?
Also Bill Clinton LIED UNDER OATH, and to the American people.
He did indeed!
Post by: acrogimp on October 17, 2016, 01:01:03 PM
You seem heavily invested in Trump, which is unfortunate because he's a bad candidate. I hear your cries of character assassination. And then I remember that we heard from Trump's own mouth that he did these things. And so I wonder, maybe it's not so much Rules for Radicals after all. Maybe I'll take Trump at his word in this case.Funny, I didn't mention Trump and even included the Allred assassination of Meg Whitman using a criminal illegal alien housekeeper. They did this to Herman Cain (no evidence, no charges, no there there), tried Romney, John McCain, etc. This is a coordinated political attack, like she does whenever the Dem candidate is struggling or a Republican actually connects with the populace and is deemed too great a threat to let go unchallenged.
It is you who seem invested. I do believe Trump IS the right candidate for this fight because he isn't taking any of this lying down, see what happened to Romney or McCain as example of the typical Republican approach to the Democrat scorched earth no-holds-barred politics of personal destruction. That does not make him a good candidate, or even a good Republican necessarily, but sometimes we need certain people to fight a certain fight, and I think he IS that guy for this fight.
To deny the obvious usage of Alinsky's Rule #4, make the enemy live up to its own book of rules is to deny the obvious - they do it because it works, because we ALWAYS pull back, we ALWAYS retreat, we ALWAYS give up.
Where are the similar calls for Hillary to drop out given the outrageous revelations coming daily from the Wikileaks releases? Where is the Democrat version of the current Republican crisis of conscience? There is not and will not be any, and the reason why is obvious, nothing is beyond the pale for the true believer - nothing.
'Gimp
Post by: Number7 on October 17, 2016, 01:04:26 PM
The hypocrisy of these pathetic idiots is astounding.
Post by: Anthony on October 17, 2016, 01:44:52 PM
So you are good with electing someone just like Bill Clinton to the office of PRESIDENT?
Not quite. Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretion issues are documented, and known. He put the country at risk by doing them, then lied under oath, and to us. Donald Trump's issues are at this point allegations, and he did not hold public office, so in my opinion he is NOT like Bill Clinton. Is Trump the perfect candidate? No! Far from it. Is he better than Hillary. IMHO, YES! I want a Capitalist in the office, not a pay to play Communist.
Post by: asechrest on October 17, 2016, 06:05:55 PM
Funny, I didn't mention Trump and even included the Allred assassination of Meg Whitman using a criminal illegal alien housekeeper. They did this to Herman Cain (no evidence, no charges, no there there), tried Romney, John McCain, etc. This is a coordinated political attack, like she does whenever the Dem candidate is struggling or a Republican actually connects with the populace and is deemed too great a threat to let go unchallenged.
It is you who seem invested. I do believe Trump IS the right candidate for this fight because he isn't taking any of this lying down, see what happened to Romney or McCain as example of the typical Republican approach to the Democrat scorched earth no-holds-barred politics of personal destruction. That does not make him a good candidate, or even a good Republican necessarily, but sometimes we need certain people to fight a certain fight, and I think he IS that guy for this fight.
To deny the obvious usage of Alinsky's Rule #4, make the enemy live up to its own book of rules is to deny the obvious - they do it because it works, because we ALWAYS pull back, we ALWAYS retreat, we ALWAYS give up.
Where are the similar calls for Hillary to drop out given the outrageous revelations coming daily from the Wikileaks releases? Where is the Democrat version of the current Republican crisis of conscience? There is not and will not be any, and the reason why is obvious, nothing is beyond the pale for the true believer - nothing.
'Gimp
You're still dancing around the point as it relates to Trump and this election. When you're caught on a hot mic telling someone you grab women by the pussy because you're a star, it is difficult to claim character assassination or whine about Rule #4 when it goes public. (I'd also quibble that it's #4.) You also seem to be insinuating that these women have been dug up to fabricate their stories. I'd be inclined to believe you in our cutthroat political environment, except that Trump admits to doing what these women say he did.
Post by: Bob Noel on October 17, 2016, 06:21:26 PM
...Trump admits to doing what these women say he did.
Which possibly makes him more honest than bill clinton and the corrupt CAB doormat (albeit a very very low bar).
Post by: asechrest on October 17, 2016, 06:45:51 PM
Which possibly makes him more honest than bill clinton and the corrupt CAB doormat (albeit a very very low bar).
I wouldn't call being caught with an open mic as honest, but I'll give it to you. I'm not even sure the major party candidates lift the bar above the ground this time.
Post by: nddons on October 17, 2016, 07:06:09 PM
You're still dancing around the point as it relates to Trump and this election. When you're caught on a hot mic telling someone you grab women by the pussy because you're a star, it is difficult to claim character assassination or whine about Rule #4 when it goes public. (I'd also quibble that it's #4.) You also seem to be insinuating that these women have been dug up to fabricate their stories. I'd be inclined to believe you in our cutthroat political environment, except that Trump admits to doing what these women say he did.
Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Did these accusers come out with these ironically similar stories before the hot mic tape came out, or after? The answer is after. Which is why I'm calling bullshit.
Remember, I'm no Trump fan. I think he's an ass. I will be voting for him because he's the only possible antidote to Hillary. But I don't like seeing someone getting railroaded either. And that's what's happening, with the democrats' quadrennial "October Surprise".
Post by: asechrest on October 17, 2016, 07:23:11 PM
Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Did these accusers come out with these ironically similar stories before the hot mic tape came out, or after? The answer is after. Which is why I'm calling bullshit.
Remember, I'm no Trump fan. I think he's an ass. I will be voting for him because he's the only possible antidote to Hillary. But I don't like seeing someone getting railroaded either. And that's what's happening, with the democrats' quadrennial "October Surprise".
That's fine. I'm inclined the other way. I see three options.
- These are women who really were accosted by Trump, and his going on national TV denying that he did these things pissed them off enough to come out.
- These are women who really were accosted by Trump, and the Dems carefully facilitated their going public.
- These women have fabricated their story.
Neither one nor two are railroading. It's my opinion that what we're seeing is one or two. If it is #3 I agree it's railroading. But unfortunately the Repubs picked a reality show playboy candidate who got caught on a hot mic saying he grabs random women in their intimate parts. So you might excuse folks if they take both his word for it and the alleged victims'.
Post by: Lucifer on October 17, 2016, 07:55:05 PM
Post by: nddons on October 17, 2016, 08:24:27 PM
That's fine. I'm inclined the other way. I see three options.
- These are women who really were accosted by Trump, and his going on national TV denying that he did these things pissed them off enough to come out.
- These are women who really were accosted by Trump, and the Dems carefully facilitated their going public.
- These women have fabricated their story.
Neither one nor two are railroading. It's my opinion that what we're seeing is one or two. If it is #3 I agree it's railroading. But unfortunately the Repubs picked a reality show playboy candidate who got caught on a hot mic saying he grabs random women in their intimate parts. So you might excuse folks if they take both his word for it and the alleged victims'.
So to be clear, you think these women independently all came forward within a one week period, none of them - not a single one - pursued one of the many remedies available to them, and their stories magically sound similar to statements made by a 60-year old guy that came out 10 days ago.
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like thinking folks.
Post by: asechrest on October 17, 2016, 08:37:14 PM
So to be clear, you think these women independently all came forward within a one week period, none of them - not a single one - pursued one of the many remedies available to them, and their stories magically sound similar to statements made by a 60-year old guy that came out 10 days ago.
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like thinking folks.
Let's not weasel into this. If a guy grabs and kisses random women, and then those women talk about it, there is no "magical similarity". There is only the fact that they were grabbed and kissed.
If you don't think it's possible that a guy who was caught saying he grabbed women in the pussy, then denied it on national TV, now has people pissed at his denial and going public to get revenge, I'm not sure what to say in your defense. If you know something I don't, I'll listen. Otherwise, I choose to believe that at worst Trump told the truth about his own actions and his victims are getting revenge, and at best he is a crass playboy reality TV star who Republican voters gifted to the Dems.
Congrats to us all. What a terrible election year.
Post by: Little Joe on October 18, 2016, 05:43:10 AM
So to be clear, you think these women independently all came forward within a one week period, none of them - not a single one - pursued one of the many remedies available to them, and their stories magically sound similar to statements made by a 60-year old guy that came out 10 days ago.No. I think that an army of Clinton goose steppers searched for these women that would be willing to lie long ago. They probably started searching for them a long time ago when they first found out about the open mic tape, and they held on to both (the tape and the women) until closer to the campaign at a time when they would need a diversion. The release of the last batch of emails was the situation for which they needed the diversion so that is when they had the women come forward.
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like thinking folks.
Post by: Anthony on October 18, 2016, 05:59:25 AM
No. I think that an army of Clinton goose steppers searched for these women that would be willing to lie long ago. They probably started searching for them a long time ago when they first found out about the open mic tape, and they held on to both (the tape and the women) until closer to the campaign at a time when they would need a diversion. The release of the last batch of emails was the situation for which they needed the diversion so that is when they had the women come forward.
Exactly. Orchestrated by the Clinton machine, AND MEDIA! Is their any proof of the sexual advances? NO.
Post by: asechrest on October 18, 2016, 06:08:29 AM
No. I think that an army of Clinton goose steppers searched for these women that would be willing to lie long ago. They probably started searching for them a long time ago when they first found out about the open mic tape, and they held on to both (the tape and the women) until closer to the campaign at a time when they would need a diversion. The release of the last batch of emails was the situation for which they needed the diversion so that is when they had the women come forward.
Whatever helps you vote at night. ;)
Post by: Little Joe on October 18, 2016, 11:33:42 AM
Whatever helps you vote at night. ;)Part of the reason I am inclined to not believe this whole groping thing is because even during the primaries, I fully expected reports such as this to come out right around now, regardless of who was the GOP nominee. It is SOP for the Dems.
Part of the reason I am inclined to believe the stories about Clinton's corruption is that there has been a pattern of behavior since before Watergate.
Post by: Number7 on October 18, 2016, 08:30:06 PM
Post by: asechrest on October 18, 2016, 09:19:38 PM
The most pathetic thing about progressives is how willing they are to embrace any lie about conservatives, no matter how pathetic and pretend to be offended. The shallowness of their minds must be breathtaking.
The shallowness of my mind is breathtaking!
Post by: JeffDG on October 19, 2016, 04:07:18 AM
Melania Trump put it best. If these women really think they have a case, let them take it through the courts and produce the evidence in a court of law.Your Orange Lord has a court date in December already.
Post by: Little Joe on October 19, 2016, 05:36:53 AM
Your Orange Lord has a court date in December already.It's a shame that he doesn't have someone high in the DOJ to recommend that no charges be pursued. (in case you missed it, that is sarcasm. The real shame is that HRC does).
As an aside, can you imagine what kind of stuff might be revealed if Barack Obama had been important enough for people to make videos of him during decades before his run for President?
Post by: Lucifer on October 19, 2016, 06:45:59 AM
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/throwing%20crap_zpsfnssuetj.gif)
Post by: You Only Live Twice on October 19, 2016, 07:42:04 AM
So Jeff stops by once again....
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/throwing%20crap_zpsfnssuetj.gif)
I thought that was Aunt Peggy.
Post by: nddons on October 19, 2016, 07:49:31 AM
So Jeff stops by once again....Ok, that's pretty friggin' funny.
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/throwing%20crap_zpsfnssuetj.gif)
Post by: asechrest on October 19, 2016, 09:31:16 AM
It's a shame that he doesn't have someone high in the DOJ to recommend that no charges be pursued. (in case you missed it, that is sarcasm. The real shame is that HRC does).
As an aside, can you imagine what kind of stuff might be revealed if Barack Obama had been important enough for people to make videos of him during decades before his run for President?
It would show lots of footage of Kenya, I'm sure.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 19, 2016, 10:04:31 AM
It would show lots of footage of Kenya, I'm sure.Well, he was "Kenyan born." ;)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
Post by: Little Joe on October 19, 2016, 10:14:52 AM
It would show lots of footage of Kenya, I'm sure.And smoking crack, and gangsta talk and hatred of white people.
Post by: asechrest on October 19, 2016, 10:24:44 AM
Well, he was "Kenyan born." ;)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
Gross, Politifact! Liberal commie organization, can't be trusted.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 19, 2016, 10:34:59 AM
Gross, Politifact! Liberal commie organization, can't be trusted.No, it's the sterling, upright Snopes! ;)
Post by: asechrest on October 19, 2016, 10:49:29 AM
No, it's the sterling, upright Snopes! ;)
Haha. I even followed the link and still called it Politifact. Damnit, Becky, quit showing me up in public. =P