Your thoughts about trump winning the presidency

@Napalm I obviously didn't miss your point. You missed mine. I never said you were against gay marriage.

I just wanted to chime in on the thing someone said a couple pages back about "there was that email stuff no one really understands and she was found innocent of all that." Actually I do understand the email stuff she was found guilty of all of that. the decision from the FBI not to prosecute was because of FBI director James Comey's decision because he couldn't "prove intent" so didn't want to prosecute. she DID have classified stuff on an unclassified server, she did allow people without proper clearance to see it, she did give SEVERAL false statements under oath to congress. these are all FACTS. but the director of the FBI didn't wanna prosecute her cause he couldn't prove she did it all "on purpose". but even if it was some big accident and her false statements to congress were lapses in her memory that says just as much if not more about her being unfit for presidency. On the other hand with trump's allegations there was NO evidence of him sexually assaulting anyone. all there is evidence of is him saying crude things while bragging about how rich and famous he is. to compare the things trump has been accused of and the evidence that exists of it, to the stuff Hillary has been proven to have done and the evidence against her, is ignorance and/or stupidity. and it doesn't help to admit up front you don't understand the "email stuff" and then in the very same breath assure everyone it's no big deal and trump talking like a male chauvinist is on exactly the same level. it isn't

@Animekirk Sexual assault has always been a very difficult thing to prove, but considering he said himself that he did those things, the evidence is far more damning than you seem to be willing to admit.

In most cases of actual sexual assault, it's very easy to prove when you have a recorded confession of guilt. But the only things I've heard him admit is the things "women let him do" because of how rich and famous he is. and if someone allows you to touch them then it's not sexual assault. never did I hear him say "they didn't want me to, but I did it anyway cause they couldn't stop me or I would have had them fired" or anything along those lines.

"If someone allows you to touch them then it's not sexual assualt." Yep, let's focus on the specific words he used. You'd probably make a good defense lawyer. "Letting" someone do something isn't a confirmation of consent, especially when that person holds a position of very significant power.

so no rich person can ever have consensual sex with a person less rich than they are because that "power imbalance" will always mean true consent can never be reached. Ive heard all that before from Laci Green. I don't buy it. unless there is some evidence of the person is using their power to coerce just the existence of the power doesn't invalidate consent. And my response wasn't to say he's definitely innocent of anything. it was just to say we cannot say for sure he's guilty either. he could be guilty of any number of things. but we don't know either way. you're speculating that he is based on things he said that do not prove what you say they prove. I'm merely correcting you. I'm not professing his guaranteed innocence.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never insinuated any such thing. Consent for something whether sex or some other interaction between people isn't hard to get. In terms of power, I'm well aware of that as doctors hold significant power over patients. If I tell a patient to take her clothes off so I can do a breast exam. Guess what, she's probably going to do it. But doctors don't just tell patients (or at least aren't supposed to) but ask if it's okay. It's not that hard.

If you're not insinuating his guilt then I don't know what your point even is. and your explanation about doctors is unneeded and again I don't see your point. If I go to touch a girl and she says nothing and lets me. she doesn't protest, she doesn't say no, then that for all intent's and purposes was consensual touching. that doesn't change just because I'm rich or famous. I would need to say or do something to make them believe they'd lose something if they deny me for my power or money to have any effect on the reality of consent/non consent. Feel free to start a "what is consent" topic if you disagree.

This is what I'm not insinuating: "so no rich person can ever have consensual sex with a person less rich." You know, that whole paragraph where you exaggerated my words to mean something they didn't. I do think that Trump is guilty, so I have no issue with whether or not you think I'm insinuating that. "If I go to touch a girl and she says nothing and lets me. she doesn't protest, she doesn't say no, then that for all intent's and purposes was consensual touching" If you think that someone can't be afraid or not want to do something without stating that in a specific moment, then that is unfortunate. This is the very reason I used the doctor analogy. Patients may not want the doctor to do something but won't say no without being asked because the doctor holds a certain level of power. That's all I'll say on that here since we are sort of sliding off topic.

what someone "may" or "may not" want to do is irrelevant. a person "may" say yes even though they don't want to. so should we invalidate "yes" as a sufficient confirmation of consent in the event that confirmation is needed? the whole idea of "think of what MIGHT be going on in the heads of someone" is ridiculous nonsense. but i'm not gonna go off topic to discuss consent. as I said I've heard it all before anyway.