Laura Ingraham: We've been waiting for this moment

[DiogenesLamp]

I've forgotten how to block people.  I desperately need to no longer see posts from DiogenesLamp.  I saw plenty of him on TOS and he is not only excessively wordy but he won't stop talking.  Can you tell me how?

Yes,  that's an adult way of handling unpleasant opinions/facts.   

[musiclady]

I said this before, we can't complain about Bill's behavior since a lot of people are defending Trump's behavior.

No we can't.

After all, the complaints against Clinton were allegations made by women, which he denied.

Trump, like Clinton has abused his position of power to molest women.

Any defense of this cretin needs to be examined based on what we already know of him.

And what we know of him is that he is a predator exactly as Bill Clinton is a predator.

[Silver Pines]

The assault charge is been thrown around too casually here. If a man makes a pass at a woman, she kisses back, he touches her, she doesn't say no nor try to stop him, were is the assault?

Are we going to throw men in jail for making passes at women? Too many here are letting their dislike of Trump making them sound like left wing University professors.

I showed several women Trump's words to guage how they felt. Their opinion was Trump believed that his fame and wealth entitled him to certain privileges and he used the women as groupies. None thought it was assault

@LMAO

Regardless of what those women said, no---we are not throwing around the word assault too lightly.

Rudy Giuliani admitted that what Trump described is assault.  As a former prosecutor, he should know.

Aside from that, however, Trump's words tell the whole story. 

He said that he walks up to women and kisses them without permission.  Then he said you can do anything, including grabbing them by the p***y.

Grabbing the genitals is clearly an extension of what he does without permission.  Kissing---then grabbing/groping.

Look, let's use a little common sense here.  If the guy just approaches women and kisses them, do you think he asks, "Hey, can I grab you down there?"  Have you ever in your life heard of a groper who asks permission from his targets? 

[Smokin Joe]

That doesn't mean that these particular actions were what people would normally classify as an "assault", other than in the most strict legal definition of a touching without consent.  Just because someone is a scumbag in general does not make them guilty of every accusation.

Women grabs guys butt in a bar, without obtaining consent.  Assault?

Well, not exactly -- I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle.  I've handled sexual harassment cases in the high double digits, and the subtleties of actual human interactions are different than how they are portrayed when discussed in the abstract.  The difference between harassment and flirting can be nothing more than whether or not the woman actually liked the guy.  There are flirtatious glances that are "I think that cute guy is checking me out" and then there's "Ew, that creep keeps staring at me."  Every unsuccessful pass is not sexual assault.

Big difference between "I think that guy is checking me out." and "Holy sh*T! He grabbed my crotch!"
There's making a pass, and making contact.

Generally, I think it should come down to whether the guy took "no" for an answer, more so than the initial pass.  If he persists in making physical contact after being given a "no", that's something different.  The truth is there are a thousand bars in this country where what Trump described happens on a nightly basis.  It can certainly be creepy when it is unwanted, but at the same time, it doesn't always end up as unwanted, and that seems to have been Trump's point.  Doesn't mean it wasn't sleazy, but I think the "sexual assault!" cry of the lynch mob may be overblown.

That's is an issue separate from other valid criticisms of his character otherwise.

You keep referring to being groped in a bar. That is, depending on the bar, an environment where a combination of lowered inhibitions and a meat market attitude will lead to such encounters, and in some instances, patrons would be disappointed to not have such.

That isn't furniture shopping, nor participating in a pageant.

But she said no...
She's just playing hard to get
But she pushed him away...
She's just feisty and seeing if he really wants to
But she's fighting him
Some women like it rough. It gets their juices going...

There is some twisted justification for every breach of etiquette.

...right down to 'She's a whore or she wouldn't dress that way. She was asking for it.' (How Islamic).

Boundaries, Major. If we can't let a woman declare hers inviolate, how are we going to defend a Country?

[DiogenesLamp]

There plenty of states that studied the issue and gave Ted a green light

First of all,  no one "studied"  it.   They simply  regurgitate the crap that most of them learned in law school,  which pretty much does not include "studying"   anything beyond Wong Kim Ark.   


Second of all,   they didn't make any Judicial finding,  those that even addressed it at all said they would not interfere.   


This ignores the point that some Hillary Friendly states might not be so accommodating.   All it takes is one Secretary of State to challenge his status and it ends up in Court.   Have you been keeping up with what that New York Attorney General has tried to do to Trump?   


That Cruz would likely win in our deliberately ignorant courts does not change the fact that the Media and his Democrat Opponents (same thing)   would incessantly question his "natural"  status,  and thereby wear down his qualifications in the court of public opinion. 


It is a low cost tactic on their part,  and I do not doubt they would have done it,   and I very much think it might have worked.   

[musiclady]

That doesn't mean that these particular actions were what people would normally classify as an "assault", other than in the most strict legal definition of a touching without consent.  Just because someone is a scumbag in general does not make them guilty of every accusation.

But this guy BRAGGED about what he did.  He's a scumbag who stated outright that he molested women just because he had the power to do so.  THAT is assault.

Women grabs guys butt in a bar, without obtaining consent.  Assault?

Might be.  But it's also different than grabbing his genitals, is it not?  That's what Trump did.  It's MUCH different than if he had patted her on the back end.  It would still be sleazy and unwanted, but not necessarily assault.  Grabbing her genitals is assault, whether the perp claims the women "consented" or not.

Well, not exactly -- I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle.  I've handled sexual harassment cases in the high double digits, and the subtleties of actual human interactions are different than how they are portrayed when discussed in the abstract.  The difference between harassment and flirting can be nothing more than whether or not the woman actually liked the guy.  There are flirtatious glances that are "I think that cute guy is checking me out" and then there's "Ew, that creep keeps staring at me."  Every unsuccessful pass is not sexual assault.

Generally, I think it should come down to whether the guy took "no" for an answer, more so than the initial pass.  If he persists in making physical contact after being given a "no", that's something different.  The truth is there are a thousand bars in this country where what Trump described happens on a nightly basis.  It can certainly be creepy when it is unwanted, but at the same time, it doesn't always end up as unwanted, and that seems to have been Trump's point.  Doesn't mean it wasn't sleazy, but I think the "sexual assault!" cry of the lynch mob may be overblown.

That's is an issue separate from other valid criticisms of his character otherwise.

Again, the scenarios you are describing are different from the actual confession he made that he grabbed women's private parts.  You can argue that "sexual harassment" is overdone and be right, but to argue that molesting women is not a problem, and the crime in the eye of the beholder is just not a valid defense of Donald Trump.

He molested women.  And if you think that they liked it, and that his fundamental dishonesty isn't an issue here, you are working against the victims of his abuse.

I hope many of these women come forward, now that the fear factor of his power over them is diminished, and press charges against him.

He needs to be brought to justice over this.

Bill Clinton got away with his crimes.  I pray Donald Trump doesn't.  His victims deserve better.

[musiclady]

Yes,  that's an adult way of handling unpleasant opinions/facts.

Putting the 12 year old on IGNORE.

One can only take so much childishness and lack of truthfulness and remain calm.

Yikes.   

[Smokin Joe]

That Cruz would likely win in our deliberately ignorant courts does not change the fact that the Media and his Democrat Opponents (same thing)   would incessantly question his "natural"  status,  and thereby wear down his qualifications in the court of public opinion. 


It is a low cost tactic on their part,  and I do not doubt they would have done it,   and I very much think it might have worked.   

Like it worked with the Kenyan? No standing, in any court. he was even reelected.

I'm not so sure.

[DiogenesLamp]

One of the most annoying, arrogant Trumplovers ever to appear on this forum.

You say you are "Mensa"  smart,   yet you keep misrepresenting me even though I have explicitly clarified this point for you at least once.   Once again,   I am not a Trump lover,   I am merely someone who is  resigned to Trump as a tool to beat Hillary,  of whom I am a very active and long term hater. 


I get it that you object to my speech.    We are all censorious  little Dictators at heart,   but most of us have developed the maturity to deal with hearing things we don't like. 

[Silver Pines]

The assault charge is been thrown around too casually here. If a man makes a pass at a woman, she kisses back, he touches her, she doesn't say no nor try to stop him, were is the assault?

Are we going to throw men in jail for making passes at women? Too many here are letting their dislike of Trump making them sound like left wing University professors.

I showed several women Trump's words to guage how they felt. Their opinion was Trump believed that his fame and wealth entitled him to certain privileges and he used the women as groupies. None thought it was assault

@LMAO

I didn't respond to the rest of your post, sorry.

You know, over the past few days, I've been dealing with an impulse to give in to anger at the way conservative men are defending Trump's actions and attempting to minimize them.  So much for the idea of rightwing men thinking women should be protected and treated like ladies.  Chalk up another eye-opening, unpleasant revelation to 2016.

I don't have to be a liberal feminist to demand decent treatment from men.  I demand it, and I don't apologize for it.  I don't mind a bit when a man makes a pass at me.  I take it as a compliment.  What Trump described is entirely different.  It is sexual assault.

As a married woman, I smile and politely discourage a man who shows interest in me.  But as I've said elsewhere, if some guy walked up and kissed me, he would receive a hard slap.  If he grabbed the part of my body Trump grabs, he'd walk away with blood running down his face and maybe minus an eye.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm just going to point out that there also exists some non-Trump supporters who peddle the argument that the GOP Congress is "useless anyway", and that it doesn't make a difference if we elect Republicans or not down-ticket because they won't stand up to Hillary anyway.  It's the "the GOP gave Obama everything he wanted" crowd, and they're actually pulling in the same direction as those Trumpists.

I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal to this point.    In what significant manner did they try to stand up to Obama?    Didn't he spend 5 Trillion dollars?   


How much was on their watch?   

[skeeter]

That Cruz would likely win in our deliberately ignorant courts does not change the fact that the Media and his Democrat Opponents (same thing)   would incessantly question his "natural"  status,  and thereby wear down his qualifications in the court of public opinion. 

It is a low cost tactic on their part,  and I do not doubt they would have done it,   and I very much think it might have worked.   

To which I say 'big deal'.

I'll take the opportunity to put the administration of a constitutionalist in the White House for a change in a heartbeat. WELL worth the risk.

[DiogenesLamp]

Putting the 12 year old on IGNORE.

One can only take so much childishness and lack of truthfulness and remain calm.

Yikes.   

Just as well,   you weren't listening anyways.   You and a lot of other people have no interest in hearing anything but your own words echoed back at you.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Like it worked with the Kenyan? No standing, in any court. he was even reelected.

Secretary of States had standing.   They refused to assert it.   Nobody wanted to be perceived as a "RACIST"   for challenging the first "Black"  Presidential Candidate that had a good chance of winning.   


John McCain had standing to do so as well ,   but he had bigger "natural born citizen"  issues than did Obama.    He was born in Panama.  (At a US Naval Base,  and to American Parents)   The public perception is that he had less of a claim to being a "natural born citizen"  than did Obama,   so McCain dared not challenge Obama on this point or the Media would have utterly destroyed him.   


The problem was,  no ordinary "citizens"  had standing.   There were people with standing,  but they would not do anything.   

I'm not so sure.

You are ignoring the role of the media in tearing down our candidates and in boosting Democrat candidates.    If you think they would have treated Ted Cruz with the kids gloves they used on Obama,  you are very much mistaken.    They would have attacked Ted Cruz with this,   and even if he had ultimately won in court,  they would have done much damage in the court of public opinion.   


Obama gets a pass by the media.   Ted Cruz would have drawn their wrath and scrutiny.   

[DiogenesLamp]

To which I say 'big deal'.

I'll take the opportunity to put the administration of a constitutionalist in the White House for a change in a heartbeat. WELL worth the risk.

I was willing to take that risk as well,   but I had no illusions as to what would be the oppositions likely strategy.    And by opposition,   I include the media as Democrat operatives. 


I initially thought Cruz would triumph anyway,   but after I see how the media have pulled out all the stops and thrown to the winds any pretense of objectivity,   I now think Cruz would having a harder time than is Trump.   

[AllThatJazzZ]

I've forgotten how to block people.  I desperately need to no longer see posts from DiogenesLamp.  I saw plenty of him on TOS and he is not only excessively wordy but he won't stop talking.  Can you tell me how?

I can't tell you by memory, but I've done it before and it's sooooo worth the trouble. There's a certain feline whose posts are as useless as tits on a boar hog, so I finally employed the ignore feature. But that person is not nearly as loquacious as @DiogenesLamp. It's curious that so many of the Trumpettes exhibit the traits of their orange god, not the least of which is diarrhea of the mouth. Jabber, jabber, blabber, prattle, prattle, prattle, blab, blab, blabber, ad nauseum, yet actually saying precious little. Making DL's posts even more pesky is the overuse of graphics.

When I put that feline poster on ignore, I just went into my profile and clicked around until I figured out how to set it to ignore. The outcome has been such a plus, I'm going to follow your lead regarding DL. BTW, be prepared to not be able to ignore this person completely since there will me those who will quote his/her posts in order to respond to them. In spite of that, it really does make navigating the threads more productive. 

@Emjay

[jpsb]

@jpsb

Where did you read that any of the women consented?

That was implied, "they let me do it". First I am tried of talking about this, Trump was joking and bragging in a private "man talk" conservation. There is no evidence that he ever did any of the things he was bragging he could do.

Much more important to me is stopping the flow of millions of illegals into the USA.
Much more important to me stopping the flow of hundreds of thousands of unvetted Islamists "refugees" into the USA.
Much more important to me is stopping a Hillary amnesty that gives the vote to tens of millions of Marxists.
Much more important to me is securing our southern border and enforcing our immigration laws.
Much more important to me is renegotiating bad trade deals that have sent our jobs and our wealth over seas.
Much more important to me is stopping our involvement in these useless unwinable nation building wars.
Much more important to me is working with Russia to wipe out ISIS instead of arming and training ISIS like this administration (Hillary) is doing.

[AllThatJazzZ]

@Emjay

Found it! Here are the steps:

Click on profile
Look on left side under “Modify Profile”
Click on “Edit Ignore List”
Enter first few letters of the name
Click on the name when it pops up
Click OK
Done!

[Smokin Joe]

I was willing to take that risk as well,   but I had no illusions as to what would be the oppositions likely strategy.    And by opposition,   I include the media as Democrat operatives. 


I initially thought Cruz would triumph anyway,   but after I see how the media have pulled out all the stops and thrown to the winds any pretense of objectivity,   I now think Cruz would having a harder time than is Trump.   

Aside from the 'birther' issue (which America had already heard once going the other way), all the other dirt that could be manufactured had been thrown at Cruz by the Trump people. Had Trump not been in the race, I think Cruz would have won handily, despite the media. Polls showed him beating Hillary, and Cruz would have gone after her, not other Republicans.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Twenty-six and a half days before the election, multiple post second debate polls have Hillary up somewhere between 8 and 9 points over Trump.

No candidate in the modern era of polling has ever climbed back from more than 4 points behind over the final month of the campaign to win the presidency.

I hope that the idea of Trump "laying a glove" on Hillary is worth the sight of Hillary wearing the championship belt for the next four years for these people.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal to this point.    In what significant manner did they try to stand up to Obama?    Didn't he spend 5 Trillion dollars?   

Okay, but let's start off by setting the goalposts in the correct place.  The argument to which I was responding was that there is no value in electing Republicans down-ticket because the GOP Congress "gave Obama everything he wanted."  I mention that because it is almost a ridiculously low bar to meet, and I'm just the guy to meet a really low bar. 

So, I listed some of the major things Obama wanted that Congress did not give him:

1) They did not confirm Garland.   That likely saved both Citizens United and Heller.  Those two issues alone are huge.  It is also highly relevant because of the next two points: 

2) Congress refused to modify the Clean Air Act as he requested, so he was forced to try to implement his global warming agenda via regulatory action/executive order.  He was stopped by the courts.

3) They refused to pass his immigration bill, so he was forced to try to get legal status for millions of illegals via regulatory/executive order.  Again, he was shot down by the courts.  And, a rehearing on this by the Supreme Court was just denied.  Had Garland been confirmed, the rehearing likely would have been granted, and Obama's executive actions would have been allowed to proceed.  That would have been game over on immigration.

4) They refused to pass amendments he wanted to the Affordable Care Act, and in fact passed legislation barring the use of federal funds to backstop insurance companies that were losing money in the exchanges.  The result of those failed amendments and legislation has been to force ObamaCare into the death spiral.

Again, I want to emphasize that considering where the goalposts were set - "there is no value in electing Republicans" - pointing out times where they failed to stop Obama doesn't advance the ball on the other side.  Someone literally must show that they caved on everything, which cannot be done.

[skeeter]

I initially thought Cruz would triumph anyway,   but after I see how the media have pulled out all the stops and thrown to the winds any pretense of objectivity,   I now think Cruz would having a harder time than is Trump.   

No doubt they'd give Cruz a harder time.

They'd have to - not only would Cruz constitute a real threat to their ideological worldview, Trump was always going to be easy pickin's.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can't tell you by memory, but I've done it before and it's sooooo worth the trouble. There's a certain feline whose posts are as useless as tits on a boar hog, so I finally employed the ignore feature. But that person is not nearly as loquacious as @DiogenesLamp. It's curious that so many of the Trumpettes exhibit the traits of their orange god, not the least of which is diarrhea of the mouth. Jabber, jabber, blabber, prattle, prattle, prattle, blab, blab, blabber, ad nauseum, yet actually saying precious little. Making DL's posts even more pesky is the overuse of graphics.

When I put that feline poster on ignore, I just went into my profile and clicked around until I figured out how to set it to ignore. The outcome has been such a plus, I'm going to follow your lead regarding DL. BTW, be prepared to not be able to ignore this person completely since there will me those who will quote his/her posts in order to respond to them. In spite of that, it really does make navigating the threads more productive. 

@Emjay

:) 

[jmyrlefuller]

If you think a state can pass a law to undo a requirement of the Presidency,   than it is pointless to argue with you further on that point. 

You accuse me of playing word games,   but I am speaking the plain truth.  I am speaking reality,  not trying to force reality to confirm to words games such as you are seemingly insisting upon. 

The bestowment in question was in 1784, three years before the Constitution was written (the states were still operating under the Articles of Confederation at the time, which gave them far greater control over their own affairs). It is the most prominent example of the use of "natural born citizen" in law from the era.

The 14th amendment is *NOT*  "natural citizenship."   Even the Supreme Court explicitly said it wasn't.   It is statutory citizenship.    Anyone made a citizen by the action of the 14th amendment is not a natural citizen,  but is instead a citizen by statute.   (man made law.)

In other words, no one is a natural born citizen under that definition.   

The founders believed that only "the laws of Nature or Nature's God",   could make natural citizens.    Congress has the power of "naturalization",   which means to make "like natural."   i.e. effectively Adoption.   

Naturalized citizens are adopted citizens,   they are not "natural"  citizens.   Their descendants are natural citizens,   but naturalized citizens are not.   

The Founders so disagreed on what the nature of God was (some were devout Christians, others deists) that they expressly barred religious tests and passed the Bill of Rights.

Natural Law is not accepted in court. See Lawrence v. Texas, Obergfell v. Hodges for prime examples.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

He molested women.  And if you think that they liked it, and that his fundamental dishonesty isn't an issue here, you are working against the victims of his abuse.

No, I'm not saying that they liked it.  It is clear that some of his passes were shot down in flames.  What I'm saying is that a crude pass is different from an assault in the face of a "no".

And if you think he should be brought to justice over this, fine.  Let someone file an assault charge.