Search options (Page 31 of 58)

vern wrote:

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

You can sit there in your underwear and robe making any number of claims which are completely false.

He isn't admitting to anything. He sounds to me like an old middle-aged man fabricating fish stories to impress a young man who is enjoying the fable as much as if it were the truth. That is locker room talk, at best exaggeration of what might have happened or fantasy of what might happen.

Right! How could I be so blind. Trump is the second coming and his loyal subjects perceive his perfectness and worship at his perfect feet. He can do no wrong. May he lift you up in his righteous arms and bestow all his glory upon you. Take care. Vern

It's not that Trump has always been right; it's that his political opposition of any Party has always been wrong.

A couple neglects to latch the bedroom door before engaging in vertical exercise, and their child walks in and sees everything.

GOP/DEM/LIB/GREEN/VERN : What an abuse of children! Why, we would never!

Trump: It's embarrassing, and one is regretful; mind your own effing business!

"A COUNTRY WITH NO BORDERS ISN'T A COUNTRY." 

That alone, spoken by no politician in the U.S. for generations, deserves him the Presidency.

vern wrote:

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

There is no research that anyone has competently accused Tump of sexual misconduct prior to this time when anyone can accuse him while shielded from suit for slander because of his candidacy..

The defense is that he has not done anything wrong.

Your claim was that in referring to these what you describe as uncorroborated stories that "...  no such accusation ever came forward until three weeks before a Presidential election." My claim is that if you do a simple competent search, it will show clearly that there were numerous incidents prior to Trump's presidential candidacy,

You can sit there in your underwear and robe making any number of claims which are completely false.

vern wrote:

You saying Trump's defense is that he has done nothing wrong when he admits his sexual assault on tape is ludicrous.

He isn't admitting to anything. He sounds to me like an old middle-aged man fabricating fish stories to impress a young man who is enjoying the fable as much as if it were the truth. That is locker room talk, at best exaggeration of what might have happened or fantasy of what might happen.

The allegations against Trump have to do with non-verbal sexual signalling, and that has a lot to do with Romance.

Can you name any human society that has survived on purely verbal affirmative consent?  If you cannot, then it is an experiment which may doom our society.  On those grounds, we should move slowly.

And if consent is not purely verbal, then there is room for mistake, misinterpretation, and poorly considered signalling based on the fascinations of power and prestige.

US law recognizes that an employer is in a position of power over the employee, and creates a much higher hurdle to demonstrate that the consent was free.  Surely that hurdle must be even higher when the employer occupies an executive office of government.

At which point, by action, the braggadocio, then and only then, becomes relevant.  But through the last 40 years of Trump's life, no such accusation ever came forward until three weeks before a Presidential election (and uncorroborated) - unlike for Bill Clinton, and, by the way, for Bill Cosby where all along through decades there had been some accusations of indecent conduct.

If the opposite is happening in the other world, how would the same situations keep arising? I get a job at a Daycare, so opposite me doesn't get a job at a Daycare. Daycare me saves a a pilot's life at the grocery (killer peas), so non-Daycare me doesn't save a life? Or takes a life? Would the life taken be related to the life saved in the other world? If not, how can all these opposite reactions possibly stay related? The pilot I save in Daycare world goes out and crashes an airliner into the ocean, but this never happens in non-Daycare world because I wasn't there to save the pilot's life, yet the opposite is supposed to happen to everyone on the plane? And so on? Cool idea, but it seems like it might start to get exponentially confusing...