I do too. While still reprehensible, the commentator was implying Harris was a weak, hysterical woman who wouldn’t be able to handle a roomful of hard-nosed military types. No matter how far-right he is, he’s not going to actually advocate gang rape on the air.
Given that he clearly takes dating advice from serial killers,
subtly advocating gang rape is right in character.
Well, not yet anyways.
There are numerous ways to insult a female and her ability to hold her own in a room full of men. You could call her weak or indecisive or say that the men are going to walk all over her or wipe the floor with her. You could call her Honey even.
Maybe because I’m female, I hear the threat implied with the choice to use “have their way with her”. I personally can’t come up with a context that makes that statement okay.
So here’s the set up: War is imminent or something
All the men in the room: We must attack now with nuclear weapons
Kamala: Now wait a minute…
All the men in the room: We are going to have our way with you
It’s the “with you” part that’s the problem, I think.
I’m sure I’m not really expressing this well, but it’s the “with her” part in his statement that bothers me. That’s not saying we are going to win the argument.
Anyway, I really hate Jesse Watters.
First we have to correct the mine shaft gap. What is Kamala Harris’ position on this vital question?
Oh god, what did Vance do with a mine shaft now?
He needs a mine shaft due to the fact that no ordinary hole can reach the depths he’s willing to go to.
You know what? I’ve altered my opinion. I’m tired of giving the benefit of the doubt to scum-sucking turd faces that have demonstrated they love to play the “benefit of the doubt” game. Imply anything at all if said with just enough flexibility of interpretation to argue it was innocent.
No. He tried to slip it in as a secret dig and got called on it immediately by his cohosts.
Screw him with a jackhammer.
In a sexual way?
To which Watters would reply “From behind” with the disclaimer “Not in a sexual way I meant we were falling behind the Russians.”
If you resort to attacking a candidate’s dog, you’re probably losing
TLDR:
A Townhall columnist, Missouri’s attorney general, Donald Trump Jr.’s wife, the founder of Turning Point USA, and others questioned the identity of Walz’s dog, Scout, based on a 2022 photo of Walz petting a different dog
Any confusion was quickly eliminated, as Walz—on that same October day—posted an Instagram video with the dog in the picture along with Scout and several others.
Psaki noted the irony in Republicans’ failed line of attack, since it’s “coming from the party whose own rising star… Kristi Noem, talked about hating her own family dog so much that she took it to a gravel pit and shot it.
Both sides are the same. One side’s candidate cheated on each of his three wives, and the other side’s candidate petted a dog who wasn’t his. I can’t decide who to vote for.
/sarcasm
Cheating on your spouse is Commonly Accepted Practice. But cheating on your dog? That’s a bridge too far.
One party pats stranger’s dogs, the other one shoots their own dog because they can’t be bothered to train it.
Both the same.
He could have just said that, had that been the entirety of the argument he wanted to convey. Instead he chose to employ an idiom that, in any context, connotes the image of manly men engaging in sexual acts upon a woman without her consent.
Mr. Watters may have a problem with Smapti’s extrapolation of his remark, but any person with the critical thinking skills of a gnat should not.
If Mr. Watters thinks that his not in a sexual way “disclaimer” shields him from the charge Smapti laid at his feet, he’s welcome to provide a context in which the idiom have [their] way with her does NOT connote gang rape.
Or he could have used almost any other expression that conveys that idea. “Run roughshod over her.” “They’d run wild.” “They’d run amok.” “They’d take the bit in their mouths.”
Go to your room.
You can’t tell me what to do! You’re not my real dad!
You’re Kayla’s real dad. Apparently.
I’ve already moved past to the next outrage.
Yeah, this. Watters wasn’t using a metaphor. He was saying that if Americans were so lost to all that is decent as to elect a female, then of course that female has to expect to get raped.
‘Have their way’ might mean something else, but ‘have their way with her’ definitely means rape.