It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Given A Subpoena For All Documents Relating To Assault Allegations

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
So just to be clear, if you "grab em by the pussy", but "they let you do it" is is still assault?


Yes. Letting you do something doesn't mean consent.




posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan

Werent all of those guys Democrats and liberals except Trump? Guilt by association in in style these days though i am afraid.

And soe of those 13 women who complained about trump id bet more than half are getting paid something to do so. Maybe not in money,but other ways.


No. Being a sexual predator isn't related to political views.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: olaru12
They tried to impeach Slick Willy for his consenting Bj in office.

Why should Trump get to skate for his assaults?


You don’t intellectually understand the difference between having a sexual encounter in the fing White House with an intern while in office and an alleged sexual assault as a private citizen years before entering public service? Hmmmmm


Apparently, you don't intellectually understand the difference between consensual and non-consensual (sexual assault).


So just to be clear, if you "grab em by the pussy", but "they let you do it" is is still assault?


Thats called implied consent of course. if they make no move to stop or protest or cry for help then sure its not a problem.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan

Werent all of those guys Democrats and liberals except Trump? Guilt by association in in style these days though i am afraid.

And soe of those 13 women who complained about trump id bet more than half are getting paid something to do so. Maybe not in money,but other ways.


No. Being a sexual predator isn't related to political views.


Apparently It is a factor in this case.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: olaru12
They tried to impeach Slick Willy for his consenting Bj in office.

Why should Trump get to skate for his assaults?


You don’t intellectually understand the difference between having a sexual encounter in the fing White House with an intern while in office and an alleged sexual assault as a private citizen years before entering public service? Hmmmmm


Apparently, you don't intellectually understand the difference between consensual and non-consensual (sexual assault).


So just to be clear, if you "grab em by the pussy", but "they let you do it" is is still assault?


Thats called implied consent of course. if they make no move to stop or protest or cry for help then sure its not a problem.


Unless, like in the case of Monica and Bill, it is in a workplace environment.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

Remember when people called Pence stupid for not having dinner with women unless his wife was present?

He doesn't sound very stupid now.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
So, more of the “do as I say not as I do” hypocrisy from the righties?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot, accusation is only proof when Bill Clinton is involved.

Let’s get real. It is weil-known that men in power use that power. This isn’t a theory or an idea ... it’s a fact that is borne out over and over and over.

And far more often than not, when the number of individuals accusing Trump over DECADES go public, knowing the calumny and BS they will be subjected to, they have more than enough reason to.

But for some of you, with Trump, or any other Republcian, it’s now a matter of finely scrutinized details and assumption of guilt on the part of the accuser.

It’s just as disgusting as anyone who gave Weinstein cover all those years.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Laws regarding so-called “implied consent” vary from State to State in the US.

Canada has very clearly stated since 1999 (Supreme Court decision) that “implied consent” is not a defense against sexual assault.

The fact that so many here are offering that as a justification points dead on at the real issue we have with sexual predators in this country.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

On ABC Today Show - I am not 100% on the source, but it was that gold and yellow set backdrop and we only get like 5 channels (Thanks Colin Powell) - a blonde host said that everytime Harvey promised a girl a part in a show or movie, and she had sex with him, it was rape. She sort of paused and swallowed, and shook her head while skrunching her shoulders just before she said 'rape', causing me to believe she was perhaps reliving a memory somewhat vividly as she laid down the extended definition. I would guess lots of women who bring us the daily programming were raped.

I didn't look for this, but I heard long ago that baba wawa is pretty good on her knees.

So now, pro quid bono involving
consensual sex is 'rape'.

Probably not rape rape, but yeah...they are amping it up for us
so we'll apply this new standard to the Donald.

# 898
edit on 16-10-2017 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
a reply to: Gryphon66

On ABC Today Show - I am not 100% on the source, but it was that gold and yellow set backdrop and we only get like 5 channels (Thanks Colin Powell) - a blonde host said that everytime Harvey promised a girl a part in a show or movie, and she had sex with him,
it was rape.

So now, pro quid bono involving
consensual sex is 'rape'.

Probably not rape rape, but yeah...they are amping it up for us
so we'll apply this new standard to the Donald.

# 897




I see. So when a serial sexual predator finally gets some of what he deserves after decades ... that's really only happening so that Donald Trump can be "set up" for what most of us already understand that he's done in the past by his own admission.

That is, in a couple of words, utterly absurd. It seems to be a prime example of the Trump Persecution Complex that so many have come down with.

Notably you seem more than a bit confused ... sexual harassment in the work place, i.e. forcing another person to have sex so that they can get a job, promotion, or keep their job, etc. is illegal, has been illegal, and even if it WASN'T ILLEGAL it would be morally reprehensible.

I'm sure you understand that though. Surely you misspoke.
edit on 16-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: NOted



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
a reply to: Gryphon66

On ABC Today Show - I am not 100% on the source, but it was that gold and yellow set backdrop and we only get like 5 channels (Thanks Colin Powell) - a blonde host said that everytime Harvey promised a girl a part in a show or movie, and she had sex with him,
it was rape.

So now, pro quid bono involving
consensual sex is 'rape'.

Probably not rape rape, but yeah...they are amping it up for us
so we'll apply this new standard to the Donald.

# 898




I see. So when a serial sexual predator finally gets some of what he deserves after decades ... that's really only happening so that Donald Trump can be "set up" for what most of us already understand that he's done in the past by his own admission.

That is, in a couple of words, utterly absurd. It seems to be a prime example of the Trump Persecution Complex that so many have come down with.

Notably you seem more than a bit confused ... sexual harassment in the work place, i.e. forcing another person to have sex so that they can get a job, promotion, or keep their job, etc. is illegal, has been illegal, and even if it WASN'T ILLEGAL it would be morally reprehensible.

I'm sure you understand that though. Surely you misspoke.


Just accurately reporting something I happened to monitor this morning.

I am sorry I didn't wait around for the hostess's name, but I think I can recognize her if
I must look it up.

I think using the word 'rape' for quid pro quo is absurd, and diminishes the severity of it.
Don't you like women?

# 899
edit on 16-10-2017 by TheWhiteKnight because: number



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

I like women fine. Apparently unlike many, I also respect them.

Yes, the points I made revolve around the identity of the host of the show you watched this AM.

Well done.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What the woman said was pretty serious, as it implicates thousands, perhaps millions
of persons, in rape.

We see the faces everyday on TV but they never say anything about it, due to shame, I suppose. I feel it is important to get the source right. She may have been RAPED and
might need our help outing her boss. Men may be victims as well, since rape is no longer considered an act of violence. Quid pro quo is RAPE no matter how much it advances your career.

I am so rattled right now because I cannot recall which show it was. There is a spate of
morning shows on the sidebands around NBC and ABC. A woman may need our help!

# 900



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
a reply to: Gryphon66

What the woman said was pretty serious, as it implicates thousands, perhaps millions
of persons, in rape.


Congratulations, you're starting to see the scope of the problem.


originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
a reply to: Gryphon66
We see the faces everyday on TV but they never say anything about it, due to shame, I suppose. I feel it is important to get the source right. She may have been RAPED and
might need our help outing her boss. Men may be victims as well, since rape is no longer considered an act of violence. Quid pro quo is RAPE no matter how much it advances your career.



I hate to say it, but this kind of sexual predation (while diminished in some ways in recent years) is literally as old as sin.

Those with less power (whether physical, economic, class-based, etc.) have always been victimized by the stronger.


originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
a reply to: Gryphon66
I am so rattled right now because I cannot recall which show it was. There is a spate of
morning shows on the sidebands around NBC and ABC. A woman may need our help!

# 900



I understand. Congratulations to you for your apparent intentions. We all need to do whatever we can to stop these horrendous crimes from happening to anyone at any time.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: loam

Remember when people called Pence stupid for not having dinner with women unless his wife was present?

He doesn't sound very stupid now.


A man should be able to have a meal in the company of a woman without sexually assaulting her. The fact that you, and other's like Sebastian Gorka, think that's the only think keeping Mike Pence from sexually assaulting women is a concern.


edit on 16-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

Laws regarding so-called “implied consent” vary from State to State in the US.

Canada has very clearly stated since 1999 (Supreme Court decision) that “implied consent” is not a defense against sexual assault.

The fact that so many here are offering that as a justification points dead on at the real issue we have with sexual predators in this country.


Laws vary from state to state and country to country. Canada has always been progressive and its not a surprise. ANd another problem we have with sexual assault is people can LIE as well.
Personally i have always asked if i was not sure.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

Laws regarding so-called “implied consent” vary from State to State in the US.

Canada has very clearly stated since 1999 (Supreme Court decision) that “implied consent” is not a defense against sexual assault.

The fact that so many here are offering that as a justification points dead on at the real issue we have with sexual predators in this country.


Laws vary from state to state and country to country. Canada has always been progressive and its not a surprise. ANd another problem we have with sexual assault is people can LIE as well.
Personally i have always asked if i was not sure.


The number of alleged victims who would "lie" as you say and endure the obscene treatment that almost anyone complaining of sexual harassment/violence/predation has to go through to prove it is minuscule.

There is nothing wrong with pure sex for sex's sake: HOWEVER, if there is any doubt that both individuals are in full consent with zero chance of being compromised due to legal or societal position ... it is much much better to move on to a fully willing partner. In my experience, there were always plenty that there were no questions about.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Not sure that’s what they’re saying. I think they’re saying that almost anything can now be misconstrued or twisted. And while I am not saying we should blame real victims AT ALL... someone is not a “victim” just bc they claim they are. It seems so many claim “victim” over things that don’t go the way they want that it diminishes real victims.

Yet, it appears like that (huge scope for victimhood) is where things are headed. So I think they mean Pence just doesn’t even put himself in that position bc you never know what someone might try to say.

(For example... since the broadcaster mentioned above declared quid pro quo sex as “rape”, conceivably asking for a job, donation etc and then not having sex bc it was never even put on the table, could turn into “I didn’t get whatever bc I didn’t have sex...” I realize that’s a drastic example and fairly ridiculous but I think they’re just saying he doesn’t even put himself in the position to be accused - no matter how crazy the accusation might be. At least that’s what I thought they meant IMHO.)

reply to: windword

edit on 17-10-2017 by nicevillegrl because: Edit

edit on 17-10-2017 by nicevillegrl because: Eta



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: nicevillegrl


I guess that's the Saudis put their women in burkas, because, we all know, women have a tendency to lie about rape.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Huh? I didn't say anything indicating women routinely "lie" about rape...

I just believe it is a stretch to call consensual, quid pro quo, interactions, "rape." I - in my opinion, as stated - feel it diminishes rape that happens in the true definition. Could consensual quid-pro-quo sex still be sexual harassment? Yes, it could, depending on the situation. Could it be sexual misconduct? Yes, depending on the situation. But I don't believe the definition of "rape" should be expanded to cover those scenarios.

Furthermore, I DO also believe there are false - or exaggerated - cases of all of the aforementioned. And I do believe we are currently experiencing a shift to a "victim culture" in general where people can / are claiming to be victims of a myriad of things in many situations (not just related to any kind of sexual misconduct).

I simply am not sure you can claim victim status if you allow something to happen (I am not talking about ceasing to fight, etc. - I am talking about allowing in the truest sense) that you didn't want to happen or especially, later decide you didn't want to happen.

Do I believe there are "real" victims? 100% yes. Of course. However, do I believe there are people (not just of sex-related offenses) who claim to be "victims" who are not? Yes. I have seen it happen too often - people who go along with something - or even PURSUE something willingly, even if it wasn't something they really "wanted" to do. Then, when they don't get the outcome they want, they choose to see themselves as - and call themselves - a victim. Again, not because they were truly "victimized" but because it helps them personally deal with the idea they did something they didn't want to do with no positive outcome.

TO BE CLEAR - There are very valid cases of rape, sexual harassment, misconduct, etc. and the perpetrators should have consequences. I am not talking about those situations.
edit on 17-10-2017 by nicevillegrl because: ETA

edit on 17-10-2017 by nicevillegrl because: grammar



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join