Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Merkava]

So now we need to read into whether he was being serious? Given the CNN anchor whose friend said Trump kissed her umprompted and the woman that sued him in '97 for grabbing her crotch, I'm learning towards him being serious.

Maybe he was. I don't know. I don't put a lot of stock in unnamed or anonymous accusations. But I don't think it's all that improbable that Donald Trump, from time to time, is immune from making boastful statements of dubious authenticity. He might even from be known to lie, every so often.

- - - Updated - - -

For someone who spams "read the thread"....

"Letting" someone do something isn't consent anymore than "letting" the man holding me at gunpoint take my wallet is.

Just copy that and paste it in your sig and save yourself the effort of posting the same reply to me over and over.

[Thepersona]

We do... it would be silly to deny it... but, it's an example of immaturity. You don't say shit like that after you've tossed 100+ k into a house for your wife and daughter, as you are trying to figure out what to do with your mother in her geriatric state. This isn't normal, it's affluenza... the man is sick...

It's like we're talking with 15-20 year old people here.

[Felya]

This has gone on too long... there will never be a point where you will convince him that Trump meant sexual assault, unless those words came out of his mouth. Let's take it a step further than what he said... let's pretend he said, 'I want to gag them, blind fold them, put them in chains and then have my way with them'. You can probebly agree that it's worse than what Trump said. But, if someone chooses to take the stance of 'he never said without concent', then nothing you say will convince him otherwise. It's really that simple...

Yes, he did say he would kiss them immediately, but guess what... did he get concent the day before? It's the R Kelly trial scene from Shapell show, in mmo-champion forum form...

[Merkava]

To point out that what you said then, and what you're saying now, contradict each other.

How are they contradictory?

[Wulfey]

I don't think that he seriously meant that.

That is exactly what he meant. Check the tic tac line.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...htmlstory.html

EDIT: I think the root of this semantic fight is that you are ignoring a context that the rest of us assume. We all see the pattern of abuser/rapist behavior and language in Trump's mannerisms. His history of nonconsensual kissing means the rest of us make the leap between his words and actions. But you only read the words in extreme isolation, without any reading of how the words link together. Thus, "they let you" is good enough for consent in your world. I am sure you will say I am strawmanning your ever moving and invisible argument here. Seriously, read this article about Trump's history of groping. Then read his quotes again. Put the pieces together a little bit. Trump doesn't get any benefits of the doubt here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/op...-in-chief.html

[Merkava]

This has gone on too long... there will never be a point where you will convince him that Trump meant sexual assault, unless those words came out of his mouth. Let's take it a step further than what he said... let's pretend he said, 'I want to gag them, blind fold them, put them in chains and then have my way with them'. You can probebly agree that it's worse than what Trump said. But, if someone chooses to take the stance of 'he never said without concent', then nothing you say will convince him otherwise. It's really that simple.

It's not only that, Trump implied that he did have consent. The next question is what kind of consent did he have. People here are accusing him of admitting to a felony. They need to be able to make their case if that's what they think.

- - - Updated - - -

That is exactly what he meant. Check the tic tac line.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...htmlstory.html

That was pointed out to me. I already addressed that to Matchles. Go read it.

[Endus]

How are they contradictory?

...

In the transcript, he's talking about assaulting women he's just met.

In your invented fantasy, he's talking about a woman he's dating.

They aren't the same thing at all. You're taking words out of context, and sticking them into a new context you've invented. You can make literally any statement acceptable if you invent a reasonable context for it to rest within, but that doesn't mean it was acceptable in its actual context.

It wouldn't be an issue if these were lines he was reading in a script for a TV show, but that's not what he was doing, and so it would be dishonest of me to pretend that he were.

[Merkava]

...

In the transcript, he's talking about assaulting women he's just met.
.

No he's not. He never uses that word "met" He never says anything about the length of time that he's known someone. Try again.

You guys are creating context where none exists. Trump wasn't answering a question. He was just rambling, stream of consciousness bullshit. I just showed you a possible context where you objections fail.

[Wells]

Just copy that and paste it in your sig and save yourself the effort of posting the same reply to me over and over.

Done with the discussion then I guess.

"They let me" isn't consent.

[Endus]

It's not only that, Trump implied that he did have consent. The next question is what kind of consent did he have. People here are accusing him of admitting to a felony. They need to be able to make their case if that's what they think.

There's only one kind of consent. And no, "they let me" isn't a demonstration of consent. If you threaten a girl and she "lets you" have sex with her, that's still rape. If you push yourself on your date and she's too afraid to fight you so she lets you have your way, that's rape. That they "let you" does not make it consensual, and that's your whole argument that these women were consenting.

[Endus]

No he's not. He never uses that word "met" He never says anything about the length of time that he's known someone. Try again.

Funny thing about English; there's a lot of other words that mean similar things to other words.

So again, we're back to you deliberately ignoring context.

He was about to meet a woman for the first time, and said he needed tic tacs in case he kissed her, and then launched into this diatribe. The context is absolutely crystal clear, you're just blatantly misrepresenting it, and thinking you're making some kind of point.

[BrerBear]

I'm sorry this is so hard for you to understand. I wish I could help you understand, I really do.

No. We've watched you on this thread for weeks.
What you wish is that whenever you start to lose an argument, you can dig in on a silly semantic point for page after page until everyone gets exhausted and loses interest so that you can save face.
Your shtick is your old and obvious.

[Merkava]

Funny thing about English; there's a lot of other words that mean similar things to other words.

So again, we're back to you deliberately ignoring context.

Tell me where he says he sexually assaults women that he just met. Shoe me the similar words to that.

- - - Updated - - -

No. We've watched you on this thread for weeks.
What you wish is that whenever you start to lose an argument, you can dig in on a silly semantic point for page after page until everyone gets exhausted and loses interest so that you can save face.
Your shtick is your old and obvious.

Then don't reply to me. Or try to prove me wrong. Either one.

[Wells]

This is beyond ridiculous.

[fengosa]

Most guys do talk to their friends about banging chicks, the ones who don't most likely don't have a social circle or they're in a WHIPPED relationship (beta cuck basically).

Nothing that was said in this video shocked me tbh, it was basically just the same old Trump as we've seen through this whole election shit.

I'd expect that kind of conversation from high schoolers. I've never had a conversation that vulgar around my married adult friends or coworkers. We're far more likely to talking about trying to get pregnant than "moving in on someone like a bitch"

The video itself isn't that shocking because Trump has shown that side of her personality. All the video shows is undisputable proof to those who have been in denial up to this point.

[Merkava]

There's only one kind of consent.

Sure there is. But unless you know what kind of consent Trump was referring to, then you can't accuse him of committing a felony.

- - - Updated - - -

This is beyond ridiculous.

I agree. That's what happens when you try to spin something into something that it isnt.

[fengosa]

Tell me where he says he sexually assaults women that he just met. Shoe me the similar words to that.

I believe the exact quote was 'grab them by the pussy'.

You have no reason to defend him anymore. He's done. Move on and enjoy president Clinton.

[Endus]

Tell me where he says he sexually assaults women that he just met. Shoe me the similar words to that.

You've linked the transcript yourself. Why are you asking me to read it to you? He's about to meet a woman, he needs tic-tacs in case he kisses her, because when he sees beautiful women, he doesn't wait, he just kisses them. And then he grabs them by the pussy.

I mean, that's a paraphrase on a few words for space, but if I just copy-paste the transcript again, you're going to insist it doesn't say exactly what it says, and then maybe make up a bunch of new stuff it clearly doesn't say so you can pretend it says that instead.

[fengosa]

Sure there is. But unless you know what kind of consent Trump was referring to, then you can't accuse him of committing a felony.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree. That's what happens when you try to spin something into something that it isnt.

The court of public opinion doesn't need evidence without a reasonable doubt.

[Endus]

Sure there is. But unless you know what kind of consent Trump was referring to, then you can't accuse him of committing a felony.

For someone who's so insistent that the transcript doesn't include the word "met", where exactly do you think it includes the word "consent"?

And if there's only one kind, then there's only one kind, so I have no idea where you're going with this.