Video of trump sexually humiliating woman on stage

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Bricker

And those are actions included in the term “body language.”

Sure you have.

Here:
You cannot harmonize that statement with a claim of assault.

I can harmonize it by assuming its made for tactical purposes and that it will eventually be retracted.

I don’t see why you’re defending him here. I was actually Trump-curious until the first debate and the Machado scandal, a lot longer than you were, and I’m still refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton, unlike you (I will either vote Stein, Castle, or abstain- no one else is available in my state). I find both Clinton and Trump utterly unacceptable. But I have no problem saying this is disgusting behavior here. why do you?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Had I to assume, I’d gather that sexual assault only counts if it meets the legal definition of sexual assault - outside of legal definitions, nothing counts for anything in Bricker’s world.

Well, outside of legal definitions and Catholic dogma.

Well, if it’s the right kind of Catholic dogma.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Hector_St_Clare

(I will either vote Stein, Castle, or abstain- no one else is available in my state). I find both Clinton and Trump utterly unacceptable.

Not that it matters: Illinois goes blue no matter which way I vote.

[Bricker]

@Hector_St_Clare

I can harmonize it by assuming its made for tactical purposes and that it will eventually be retracted.

OK, what’s your vision of “eventually?” A year?

I’ll bet you $100 that a year from now, she does not retract her statement.

I don’t see why you’re defending him here. I was actually Trump-curious until the first debate and the Machado scandal, a lot longer than you were, and I’m still refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton, unlike you (I will either vote Stein, Castle, or abstain- no one else is available in my state). I find both Clinton and Trump utterly unacceptable. But I have no problem saying this is disgusting behavior here. why do you?

Because this is not – unlike much of the rest of Trump’s antics – not “disgusting behavior,” and because I don’t believe that my general disgust at Trump means that I must refrain from defending a false accusation. just like I defended Hillary Clinton when false accusations were leveled against her.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Jennifer Hawkins]
I’ve said it before, he has treated me with respect, and so has his family. Beyond that, what else am I going to comment on
[/QUOTE]
Really? This is it??

@Bricker

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.

Do you?

Where does she say she consented to this particular bit of manhandling? Bricker, it’s not there.

@Bricker

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.”

Her actual words say no such thing.

@Bricker

If she were to say, “The truth is I never consented, and I only said I did because I feared angering the next President of the United States,” then I’d view the situation differently.

But I won’t write that dialog into her mouth on my own.

No, your interpretation of about as general and non-specific a statement as one could imagine is that she said “When I was up on stage with Donald Trump, I gave my full and explicit consent to every thing he did with me there.”

@Bricker

Here, the claim is about what she was thinking and what she consented to, and her body language can only provide clues. When her verbal declarations are explicit and to the contrary, you have no right to inform her that you have decided how she must have felt, and aren’t moved by her mere words.

I’m still waiting for those ‘explicit’ verbal declarations.

Again, you have a strange interpretation of what ‘explicit’ means.

@Bricker

Her words, is the correct answer.

With respect to that particular incident, there’s nothing in her words to believe or disbelieve.

This has the specificity of a non-denial denial.

Thoughout your presence in this thread, you’ve been claiming that her words explicitly contradicted the very things anyone can plainly see on that videotape. There is nothing there that says anything about that incident at all. So she has said nothing that says that we should explain to our eyes that they’re lying to us.

You’ve been bluffing throughout this thread. Here I thought you might have two pair or three of a kind back there, and instead you’ve got jack-high. Wow, you sure kept me going there.

You’ve made a total joke of yourself here.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Hey, I could just be a guy mansplaining and white knighting where I don’t need to be.

It’s entirely possible. People can make such a mistake.

So I kind of have to ask the women who are reading this to tell me if what she said in the video and how she behaved makes you think she was not consenting to Trump’s actions, and was resisting them.

I could be misunderstanding consent here, I don’t think I am. Turning away, pulling back, blocking, etc, all are clear examples in body language. The words she was using suggested she was extremely uncomfortable.

The behavior of Trump himself suggested he was attempting to get even, publicly shame, and humiliate her, and was making an example of her.

Whether she played along or not, it was vile of HIM to do so, and frankly, only protesting a little bit or making it clear she is uncomfortable with his actions and didn’t want him touching her, is the same as a clear and loud protest. And on the spot, not every person is willing to “cause a scene” by loudly protesting and calling him out for it right then and there. As if protesting an invasive and unwanted action is rude, not the forced attempt at intimate contact without permission.

You can also tell me this, any woman reading this: How many times in your own personal life have you decided not to press charges when a man groped you or kissed you after you made it clear you didn’t want him to do so?

Follow-up: Is not pressing charges evidence of consent? I don’t think so. But open question.

I could be a stupid SJW here, but I think not. I think Bricker is talking out of his asshole.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think the icky skeevy feeling being felt by almost every person who watched it tells you something. But let’s totally defend trump humiliating a woman on stage and giving her unwanted physical contact. That’s totally appropriate behavior and condemning it is just hippie SJW crap.

Calling out a serial groper is bad, folks. Sad(!) even. We shouldn’t do such things. Hell, we should encourage it, right.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

She’s asked about the event years later, while…she’s surrounded by an audience eager to support her in agreeing that Trump acted poorly.

Another one of your inventions, I guess.

No evidence from the link that anyone besides the interviewer was privy to her remarks when she was making them.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I live up to the words in my version, as understood by my chosen tradition of interpreting it.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously ‘interpreting’ is an awkward word in your hands, counselor, but IIRC, your faith tradition still regards ‘thou shalt not bear false witness’ as a real commandment. Yet you’ve done nothing but that in this thread.

[Bricker]

@Askthepizzaguy

I think the icky skeevy feeling being felt by almost every person who watched it tells you something. But let’s totally defend trump humiliating a woman on stage and giving her unwanted physical contact. That’s totally appropriate behavior and condemning it is just hippie SJW crap.

Calling out a serial groper is bad, folks. Sad(!) even. We shouldn’t do such things. Hell, we should encourage it, right.

Without the later Hawkins interview, you’d be exactly correct: it looks like unwanted physical contact.

But now we have learned that it was not unwanted. Later evidence recasts our earlier observation in a different light.

As an analogy, imagine you came upon a man leaning a woman by a leash, wearing a dog collar, and treating her with disrespect as though she were a dog. You might well be concerned about the abusive nature of that relationship.

But if you were to learn later that the pair lives a D/s lifestyle, and each desired that kind of conduct, you would have to re-interpret what you saw in light of that information, and conclude that contrary to your initial worry, justified though it was, the relationship was not abusive.

@Askthepizzaguy

Hey, I could just be a guy mansplaining and white knighting where I don’t need to be.

It’s entirely possible. People can make such a mistake.

So I kind of have to ask the women who are reading this to tell me if what she said in the video and how she behaved makes you think she was not consenting to Trump’s actions, and was resisting them.

There is exactly one woman whose assessment is completely relevant: Ms Hawkins.

[Barrett_Bonden]

@Barrett_Bonden

If one cannot obtain a conviction does that mean that no crime has occurred?

Everyone seems to agree that if Ms. Hawkins didn’t want to press charges, then no charges should have been brought. However, pointing out that Trump’s actions were assault does not imply that Ms. Hawkins “lacks the capacity to affirm consent.” It merely emphasizes that it is not worth her while, in her judgment, to make that accusation. I have a friend who has the distinction of having been goosed by Trump. She didn’t make an issue of it either, judging that it would cause an uproar that she didn’t need. My friend’s decision implies nothing about the rightness or legality of what Trump did to her.

It merely illustrates the difference between justice for the rich and justice for the rest of us, frankly.

@Bricker

There are no “charges” to be pressed. Its doubtful the video depicts a crime, and even if it did, the statute of limitations is long past.

Your friend may not wish to make an issue of it, but does she say that Trump always treated her with respect, as Ms. Hawkins did? This is not merely declining to “press charges;” this is affirmatively stating that there was no assault.

Can I draw you back to my initial question? If one cannot obtain a conviction does that mean that no crime has occurred?

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

No, your interpretation of about as general and non-specific a statement as one could imagine is that she said “When I was up on stage with Donald Trump, I gave my full and explicit consent to every thing he did with me there.”

When she was asked if Trump’s actions were unwelcome and she responds by saying that he has always treated her with respect, it’s very difficult to accept that she wanted to add, “…except then.” to the end of the sentence. You want to transform her statement to mean the opposite of what she intended.

I agree she could have provided more detail, and I expect that she wanted to say two things: that her own contact in the video with Trump was not an assault, but that she did not intend to defend Trump for his other reported assaults. Undoubtedly Hawkins knew – much better than I do – the peculiar mental defect suffered by much of the world, where a defense of Trump on on point would be seen as a defense of Trump on all points. This she did not appear to want to do.

[Bricker]

@Barrett_Bonden

Can I draw you back to my initial question? If one cannot obtain a conviction does that mean that no crime has occurred?

Of course.

The answer is yes. The lack of a conviction does not mean that no crime has occurred.

Also: that observation has little relevance here.

By the way, just pointing out that the boiling point of iron is 2,862°C. Do you agree?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

When she was asked if Trump’s actions were unwelcome and she responds by saying that he has always treated her with respect, it’s very difficult to accept that she wanted to add, “…except then.” to the end of the sentence. You want to transform her statement to mean the opposite of

Bricker’s interpretation of

what she intended.

FTFY.

No, she gave a non-answer, and you want to interpret it as something vastly different. And have that interpretation trump what we can all see in the video.

Now you’re the one claiming to know Hawkins’ feelings.

Aren’t you embarrassed to put forth such nonsense?

Undoubtedly Hawkins knew – much better than I do – the peculiar mental defect suffered by much of the world, where a defense of Trump on on point would be seen as a defense of Trump on all points. This she did not appear to want to do.

More bullshit. Apparently you know everyone’s feelings.

Pathetic, really.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

But now we have learned that it was not unwanted.

Maybe you’ve learned it, but I guess you must have the secret decoder ring. Lacking that tool, the rest of us have learned no such thing.

You insist on egregiously redefining a vague and general statement to mean what you insist it must mean about a particular incident.

I think that Dodgson guy had your number.

[Barrett_Bonden]

@Bricker

Of course.

The answer is yes. The lack of a conviction does not mean that no crime has occurred.

Also: that observation has little relevance here.

By the way, just pointing out that the boiling point of iron is 2,862°C. Do you agree?

Thanks, and yes, I agree (although I had to look up the boiling point of iron).

I must have not understood your initial argument, because I thought you were saying that Trump couldn’t have acted badly because Ms. Hawkins said after the fact that it was just fine.

[JohnT]

@Ulfreida

Although Trump doesn’t seem competent enough to be the AntiChrist, in most other ways he seems to measure up. I don’t know why more people haven’t gotten on this.

You must not be making random GOTV calls to senior citizens then. I get “Trump=antichrist” at least once a day.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

In the case of the Trump video being discussed in this thread, Hawkins is not asked about her consent while standing next to Trump. She’s asked about the event years later, while Trump is halfway around the world, and she’s surrounded by an audience eager to support her in agreeing that Trump acted poorly.

I’ve already addressed the imaginary audience, so moving on: your underlying claim is that she’s asked about this incident in a context where she is safe, and has every reason to tell the truth about what happened between them five years earlier.

In the words of Arthur Dent, “This is obviously some strange usage of the word *safe *that I hadn’t previously been aware of.”

You seem to be under the impression that mere distance constitutes safety from a vengeful billionaire’s attempts to fuck up one’s life.

[QUOTE=Donald Trump]
I believe, get even with people, if they screw you, screw them back, 10 times harder. And I’ll give you an example, Jennifer Hawkins.
[/QUOTE]

In this instance, he was ready to seek revenge, for what? For not being there to introduce him at a speech when he was expecting her to do so.

That’s pretty small potatoes compared to cementing Trump’s record as someone who kisses and gropes women whether or not they want it. You think that once the election’s over, and the spotlight is on battles between President Clinton and a Congress at least partially under Republican control, he can’t do a great deal to make her life miserable, regardless of the oceans between them?

I might add that unlike the women who’ve chosen to come forward and tell their stories about Trump assaulting them, she did not make that choice. She did not release this video. It’s always a risk for a woman to make such accusations against a man, particularly if that man is rich or powerful or well-connected. And doubly so if that man has practically a modus operandi of excessive revenge. It’s one thing to choose that fight. But it’s a whole 'nother thing if the fight finds you before you’ve had a chance to decide if you’re ready for it.

Since you’ve been willing to spin the **context **of her words one way, let me suggest that her more obvious meaning, given the full context, is simply: “I’m ducking this issue.”

[Clothahump]

@Askthepizzaguy

It speaks for itself.

It does? Where’s the sexual humiliation and the groping? I didn’t see any. And neither does anyone else. This is liberal bullshit and you people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Pure, panicking desperation on your parts.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

And of course, the phenomenon of a parade of non- and anti-religionists explaining how a Christian should respond never gets tiring.

This is ridiculous. If someone talks about their Christianity and how it affects tehir moral response, what, the rest of us aren’t allowed to comment on it? The dominant religion in our culture’s history is taboo for our commentary, we’re just supposed to lie back and take whatever people say about it?

Many of us atheists have a strong background in religion. For example, I’m a confirmed member of the Presbyterian church. It’s not like we’re speculating on Christianity based on that one time in college we spent a week visiting cathedrals in Spain.

Christians who don’t want their responses discussed should stop talking about how Christianity informs their responses.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

In the words of Arthur Dent, “This is obviously some strange usage of the word *safe *that I hadn’t previously been aware of.”

You seem to be under the impression that mere distance constitutes safety from a vengeful billionaire’s attempts to fuck up one’s life.

Wow. Let’s all hide.

Absurd. She’s in another country, surrounded by national borders and a supportive population. And under your view, no possible testimony can EVER exonerate Trump: he’ll always be a “vengeful billionaire,” after all.

In this instance, he was ready to seek revenge, for what? For not being there to introduce him at a speech when he was expecting her to do so.

My God, you’re a simple person.

Even Trump, far from a genius, intuitively understands that seeking revenge in this way cannot happen if the vengeful person is willing to describe what he was planning. In other words, you dope, you took Trump’s words as a literal battle plan.

Since you’ve been willing to spin the **context **of her words one way, let me suggest that her more obvious meaning, given the full context, is simply: “I’m ducking this issue.”

This is not a testable hypothesis. No matter what she says, you can simply dismiss it as fear of Trump’s vengeance. If Trump dies, and she still fails to speak as you want her too, then she’ll be unwilling to speak ill of the dead, or she’ll be worried that Trump left some provision in his will to fuck her over if she dared to attack him… despite the fact that there’s a parade of women who have attacked him already for similar conduct without being set upon by Trump’s ninja corps.

Whar would she need to do to convince you that you were mistaken?