2 ms·

> On the one hand we have an email dump that, while there seems to be some amount of smoke, doesn't itself represent much of a fire. Just the usual Clinton crap

> On the one hand we have an email dump that, while there seems to be some amount of smoke, doesn't itself represent much of a fire. Just the usual Clinton crap: lots of shady stuff that rides the line of ethics, and veers pretty far into a inside political baseball. You do not seem to be very familiar with them. >On the other, we have a wildly controversial presidential candidate caught talking about sexually assaulting women Demonstrably false. Say what you want about the unsavory nature of the quote, the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if you willfully omit the last part of the quote (" they let you do it.") > followed by women coming out and actually saying he did it Then followed by several witnesses who came out and said "I was there, and nothing remotely close to this happened." These were also to my knowledge not reported in the mainstream media with the exception of the New York Post, which covered the witness to the allegations of sexual assault on a plane. > Based purely on the assumption that news == entertainment, which story do you think will get the headlines? My issue wasn't that they weren't getting the same font size as the groping allegations - my issue is that they aren't getting covered AT ALL. So do I believe the stories contained in the wikileaks dumps are more newsworthy than "Donald Trump got fresh with me 30 years ago (and do me a favor and ignore anyone who says otherwise? kthx)"? ...Yeah, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say they are. Or again, you could "use regular ol' common sense" and ask yourself 'If I replaced the name 'Clinton' with the name 'Trump' in this case, would the outcome be the same?" If you don't think so, I'll give you my Skype username so you can look me in the eye and tell me the media wouldnt pounce on a story of Trump's campaign manager complaining about "needy Latinos"

actsasbuffoon 10y ago
> the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if > you willfully omit the last part of the quote (" > they let you do it.") There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police. If my dog craps on your doorstep and I leave it there, you won't be happy about it. You probably won't stab me or call the police though. That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote. If I leave dog poop on your doorstep and you don't do anything to me, I could say that you let me do it. That doesn't mean I didn't do anything wrong. You don't have to call the cops for it to be sexual assault. You don't even have to physically resist. If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.
- shoehornhands 10y ago
  > There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police...That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote. So yeah...grasping at straws. > If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple. Which if we take at face value then every single teen boy has committed sexual assault, starting with the "yawn and put your arm around her" move. As the saying goes, "If everybody's guilty of everything, then nobody's guilty of anything." But we need to be careful not to conflate two issues here: suppose we even had iron-clad proof that he did it and was unapologetic and planned to do it again next Thursday, there is zero excuse for the press's near-complete silence on the Clinton emails. I'm not pretending to offer a theory as to why this lack of coverage is occurring - just mentioning it as a data point.

actsasbuffoon 10y ago

> the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if > you willfully omit the last part of the quote (" > they let you do it.") There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police. If my dog craps on your doorstep and I leave it there, you won't be happy about it. You probably won't stab me or call the police though. That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote. If I leave dog poop on your doorstep and you don't do anything to me, I could say that you let me do it. That doesn't mean I didn't do anything wrong. You don't have to call the cops for it to be sexual assault. You don't even have to physically resist. If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.

shoehornhands 10y ago
> There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police...That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote. So yeah...grasping at straws. > If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple. Which if we take at face value then every single teen boy has committed sexual assault, starting with the "yawn and put your arm around her" move. As the saying goes, "If everybody's guilty of everything, then nobody's guilty of anything." But we need to be careful not to conflate two issues here: suppose we even had iron-clad proof that he did it and was unapologetic and planned to do it again next Thursday, there is zero excuse for the press's near-complete silence on the Clinton emails. I'm not pretending to offer a theory as to why this lack of coverage is occurring - just mentioning it as a data point.