And other than from being groped, could you explain how the miles and the oceans protect her?
I certainly didn’t say that. Guess that must’ve been the RTFirefly in your head.
ETA: But by his own words, he will always be a vengeful billionaire, until he leaves this mortal coil. A sensible person will make sure they’re ready to take on someone like that before they do so.
*What *battle plan? Where does he describe his plan for revenge if she had said, “damn straight I didn’t want that SOB to kiss me, didn’t you see me do my best to keep him from doing so?”
I missed that part.
Well, neither is yours, buddy boy.
Remember how you said “her verbal declarations are explicit and to the contrary”?
If they’d actually been that, I would have given them credence.
I welcome comments from the “many of you,” that are, in fact, grounded in a strong background in religion.
But comments that assert no Christian could possibly support Trump are not thus grounded.
Now, don’t get me wrong: Trump’s not a Christian role model. But neither is Clinton. So the argument against a Christian supporting Trump can be applied in large measure to a Christian supporting Clinton. BUT THAT ARGUMENT IS ABSENT. And with good reason: it is fundamentally flawed, because a Christian voting in a secular election for President has no good choices. It does not become un-Christian to cast my vote for serial liar Clinton, as I intend to do, because my intent is to avoid a Trump presidency for the country, which in my judgement would be a far worse outcome. But that does not mean I support Clinton as a Christian voter.
Do you see? The decision to support Trump can be made by a thinking Christian. I am not infected with the disease that transforms my view of what’s right into a conviction that any opposing view is evil.
Well, yeah, I guess there’s also the Trump Trained Ninja Squad. Deadly, silent, unspeakably violent. They speak Japanese, they do whatever they please, and if you tear off their masks they’ll be smiling.
Was it Vonnegut who said “you are what you pretend to be, so be careful what you pretend to be”? In that context, you should stop pretending to be stupid.
Shockingly, that’s not precisely what I I have argued here, and even if it were, your question about crime does not help in analyzing the situation.
I didn’t say that Trump could not have acted badly. I said that the best evidence now indicates that he didn’t.
Crimes have a defined set of elements. When all the elements have been met, the crime is complete. When we discuss whether a crime “actually happened,” we assume we are speaking with authority as to the set of facts alleged: (“With no witnesses present, and just before the volcano’s flow engulfed the two men, Edward shot James iin the head. ‘That’s for cheating on me with Stan,’ he said resentfully, and then both bodies were consumed by lava.”) In that description, we can say confidently that a crime was committed, but can never be prosecuted, because we accept the truth of the facts as relayed by the narrator.
Here, in contrast, we have no infallible narrator. We have a set of circumstances that compel conclusions. The video, alone, certainly is evidence that Trump acted disrespectfully towards Hawkins.
But against that evidence, we have Hawkins herself saying otherwise.
And her judgement is critical, because Trump did nothing wrong unless she regarded his actions as disrespectful – unwanted. Her body language suggests that perhaps she did, but her words much more clearly say that she did not.
Now, did you seriously not know that this distinction existed between the “crime” question you posed and the situation under discussion here? Really?
On the contrary, I am, without bias, analyzing every set of circumstances and applying the results of that analysis to what I say.
Trump has assaulted women; that much is obvious and I have no concern about saying so. Not only do I have no love for Trump, but I find the behavior repulsive. I was prepared, on seeing this video, to do the same.
But when I heard Hawkins’ demurral, I changed my view of this incident, based on the evidence.
You, in contrast, point your woolly head at whatever the left tells you to think. This grand concern over the assault of women did not, shockingly, manifest itself when the accuser was Paula Jones or Juanita Broaderick and the accused was Bill Clinton. No, your phony concern rests only in what Mother Jones and the L.A. Times tell you to think.
I don’t know why Bricker’s legal opinion should matter - the incident took place in Australia and as far as I know, Bricker is not licensed to practice law there.
I just felt like tossing that word in there.
I thought I was on a roll
But, his “everything is shit the entire system is corrupt and only I can fix it” sounds a lot like famous dead fascists (or “strong men”?) of the past (Mussolini for example).
His character, or lack of it, speaks for itself. We’ve all been witness to his serial lying by now. We’ve heard his bragging - about how he can do whatever he wants to whoever he wants and get away with it. As for his ideas, his policies, we’ve really heard damn near NOTHING.
I’m so glad that one so pure has consented to grace the rough-and-tumble of this message board.
And a mind-reader, too! O, how glorious it is that a person with such formidable powers is also so pure of heart and mind!
Not only do you read minds, but you know what I was saying and thinking way before this board came into being! Thank goodness you’re also such a paragon of integrity.
You truly are a wonder, Bricker. I must someday apologize for ever doubting you.
You know the nature of time is such that once an event has happened, people can still talk about it? So, yes, even though Broadrick’s allegations concerned an event in the past, people here can talk about them, and did. And I well recall your half-assed approach that you thought that the Democrats who had defended Clinton against impeachment had done the right thing in doing so, but should just ask Clinton to resign.
As opposed to, you know, something substantive, like asking for a set of articles of impeachment. You wanted them to march down the streets of DC and request that Clinton step down, or some stupid shit like that. He’s a gentleman; he’ll listen to reason.
Oh, he didn’t resign? Well, curse the luck, there’s nothing to be done with the cad.
Bricker, I am struggling to understand your point of view, which is why I continue to ask questions. I had initially thought that you were arguing that 1. Trump’s actions were okay because 2. it was not a convictable crime, and it was not a convictable crime because 3. the key witness would not testify against Trump. That’s why I used the word “crime,” but based your explanation, that’s not your point. So I apologize for muddying the issue with the word “crime.”
As other folks have pointed out, we have an unstaged occasion (the events weren’t planned and the script was not run by the participants in advance) during which two people who have a professional relationship interacted with one another. Trump belittled Ms. Hawkins. He made sexual jokes about her. He made physical, sexual contact with her which was uninvited and which she tried to evade. Do we agree on this?
In interviews after the fact, Ms. Hawkins said that Trump’s actions were fine. You are saying that her words clarify that what Trump did was actually fine, despite appearances. Have I finally got that correct?
What he did was not fine. Trump, and every troll in a position of power gets away with shit like that because they know that no one will challenge them. Grabbing a fellow professional and kissing them despite their unwillingness is not fine. You would never do it to a colleague of yours, even a junior colleague, even one who held you in such respect that she’d laugh afterwards and brush it off (as Ms. Hawkins is doing). It’s not fine, and it’s very distressing to watch you, whose judgment I typically respect a lot, contorting yourself to explain why a person who has behaved badly didn’t actually behave badly.
By the way, Bricker’s the first person to to reference Bill Clinton in this thread (there have been numerous references to Hillary). He’s introducing irrelevant material to bolster his case.
You’ll search my prior posts in vain for the word “crime,” unless I was using it to reply to you or someone else who said “crime” first. So I cannot quite understand where this impression arose, but no matter. Not talking about a crime, and it seems clear now to all concerned.
Not precisely, no. I agree that’s a fair reading of the events, but not an unambiguous one.
Yes.
No, here is where we part company. It’s true that I never kiss my colleagues. But it’s also true that my colleagues are not part of a culture that routinely kisses. In the entertainment world, there’s a great deal more kissing and hugging than there is in the business world. In fact, when I did theatre, that kind of greeting was de riguer amongst members of the company.
Now, it’s true also that in such instances, there’s a more open body language; we don’t typically see the dodge that Hawkins showed. And it was based on that dodge that I formed my initial opinion.
But I have also known people who share genuine and deep affection for one another but whose outward interaction is trading insults and barbs. If I met my cousin and his brother for the first time I’d believe them mortal enemies. But their casual insults were the bedrock of a strong and genuine bond. I can only imagine my trying to explain to them how abusive their relationship “really” is.
So the correct rule is to grant people the agency to determine their own rules.
You don’t get to determine if Trump acted badly towards Hawkins if Hawkins herself does not agree. Otherwise, you remove from her the agency to determine how she wishes to be treated and substitute your own.
Two problems with your analysis. The first is that this was not a private interaction between two individuals. This was public and unscripted. You are not allowed to treat a fellow human being badly in public because you’re sure when you ask afterward that they will be okay with it.
Second, when there is a disparity in power, claiming that the person without power is “okay with it” is a cop out. I don’t care that there are women on the planet who would accept being treated that way. That doesn’t excuse his behavior.
Here’s the thing: grabbing someone and trying to kiss them without their permission is objectively bad. You don’t do it. You shouldn’t do it. Doesn’t matter that one person happened to say, “Oh, I didn’t mind,” afterward. You just don’t do it.
