As far as I can see, everything about Trump is repulsive and disgusting, and goes completely against any “teachings”, and no Christian should vote for him.
So the only explanation I can come up with, is these people are just as shit bad as him, but hide behind Jeebus because they don’t have enough spine to at least OWN it.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for the poor to get into heaven.
Grab all you can and follow me.
When I was hungry you told me to get a job.
Thou shalt bear false witness.
Thou shalt steal.
Thou shalt covet.
Vengeance is yours sayeth the Lord.
Plus he’s a narcissist, a sexual predator, a bully, a serial liar, a thief, a coward, and a fascist.
Nope, fuck that guy.
Maybe not a correspondence dinner, but how about a G8 summit? All’s I’m saying is this is bottom-of-the-barrel, low grade tactlessness, not at all shocking for the Flaxen One.
The concern I have with this analysis is that the woman in question seemingly doesn’t agree with it, and since the issue of consent is central to your conclusions, it seems that her revealing that there was consent is fatal to your claim.
Unless you believe, as askthepizzaguy does, that her agency on this cannot be granted – that in fact she lacks the capacity to affirm consent.
Heck, we’d just like to see you live up to the words in your magic book. A lot of the time, you’re trying to make US live up to them, and at least we admit we don’t want to.
“Fascist” doesn’t really belong with the other terms in the list. Narcissism, sexual assault, bullying, lying, cowardice, contempt for the poor and hungry, greed, false witness, vindictiveness (wow, this is a long list) are all clearly incompatible with Christianity, and with basic morality, and Trump has them in spades. Fascism isn’t, necessarily: like communism, monarchy, etc. it’s a political ideology (or rather a loose name for a whole family of political ideologys) which isn’t necessarily with Christianity, although some iterations of it (in Germany, for example), certainly are.
There are lots of political leaders around the world today and in the past who are called ‘fascist’ by their enemies, and in many circumstances I might vote for them. I can’t in good conscience vote for Trump though, for reasons that have as much to do with his character as his ideas.
It’s not exactly hard to read the teachings of Jesus and Paul and understand what they are saying. It was the massive contradictions between those teachings and the actual teachings of every church I ever went to that pushed me away from Christianity, well before I became an atheist.
Which isn’t to say I agree with all those teachings - off the top of my head, Paul’s misogyny is evil and the idea of turning the other cheek is idiotic - but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand them, and I’m sure the majority of people could.
The problem is that the vast majority of Christians ignore those teachings, being constantly lied to by their church leaders, and misled by their fellow brainwashed fools.
And your selectivity is well established, I am confident.
Anyhoo, Trump could be a misogynist bully jerk to a much greater degree than has already been established and STILL be presidential IF he was just finishing his third term as governor of New York or some other comparable record of public service where his actions were a net positive to his constituents.
But I suspect your words were not intended as an actual analysis of convenience, but rather as a way to cast doubt on my claim without the messy requirement of actually offering any evidence for the claim.
I’m a Roman Catholic, and I live as a Roman Catholic. There’s some selectivity involved, to be sure: the Church has guidance which is not mandatory and it has precepts that are mandatory. The latter, I follow, and I don’t perceive any substantial variance between those words of my “magic book” and how I live my life.
I’m not even sure what you’re asking. It’s not a question of her agency now; she has that.
I’m sure in a court of law, she can retroactively grant consent, and that’s an affirmative defense or whatever the proper legal term is.
But we’re not talking about charging him in a court of law. We’re trying to get a read on who he is, and what this tells us about the credibility of other accusations being made.
We have the video. In the video, consent is clearly absent - she blocks him with her arm and turns her face away.
She can say whatever she wants now, but it doesn’t change what we’re seeing. He’s the sort of guy who will talk about screwing people over to get revenge, then use her as a for-instance of that, then try to grab her and kiss her just to show he can.
I believe we all have agency, but our agency doesn’t extend to being able to go back and change the past.
And IIRC, a shitload of people loudly criticized Bush’s behavior at the time.
True, but again:
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The real point here is, though, that he was willing to do a milder version, in public, up on stage, of what a dozen women have accused him of doing in private.
The point is that if one had doubts about their truthfulness, here he is doing something that’s very much of a piece with what he’s accused of. If he’s willing to do that much in front of an audience, with his face up on a few Jumbotrons, it should be no surprise that he was a bit more forceful and persistent in private.
The problem is that however good you think the evidence is for her lack of consent, it derives from her body language and your interpretation. If her ACTUAL WORDS say that she consented, then you cannot say, “I don’t care what her words are; my read of her body language trumps (ha!) her words.”
