4 ms·

> brags I think that if any other celebrity said what he said, you'd think it's a little off color, but not bragging about criminal actions. His statements ver

> brags I think that if any other celebrity said what he said, you'd think it's a little off color, but not bragging about criminal actions. His statements verbatim do not imply anything criminal, unless you fill in extra words yourself. If you don't hate the guy, you could easily fill in extra words the other way, that is, to make it sound like he's saying something less ambiguous and more reasonable.

dpark 10y ago
So ignore the part about sexual assault and there's still a laundry list of stuff that Trump has said on the record that is terrifying in a major party political candidate. Complementing dictators for running countries well? Proposing a ban on Muslims in direct contradiction of the bill of rights?
- drakonandor 10y ago
  As I understand, even at the farthest point he was talking about non-citizens of this country. I don't personally believe we need a reason to stop a non-citizen from coming here. I also don't see any reference in the Bill of Rights concerning that - it's certainly a presidential power that has been exercised before. It is worth noting he has since backed (evolved if you will) that position down to "extreme vetting" to "certain parts of the world" (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.)
  - dpark 10y ago
    There has never to my knowledge been a president who banned immigration based on religion. If it's happened it was unconstitutional then as well. Certainly it's within the government's scope to ban immigration but not based on a religious test.
    - itbeho 10y ago
      Obama in 2011? He certainly didn't say it was based on religion, but these were almost all muslim countries of origin: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presi...
      - dpark 10y ago
        Did you link to the wrong proclamation? There are no countries even specified there. It's basically a proclamation that we won't allow in people who committed war crimes. And there's nothing legally wrong about blocking immigration from a certain country or countries. We could block immigration from Italy and Poland and it wouldn't be unconstitutional despite the fact that they are predominantly Catholic. The religious test itself is what's unconstitutional.
        drakonandor 10y ago
        And if the religion condones crimes against humanity? All we'd have to do is ask: What do you think should be done with homosexuals? What do you think should be done with Israel? and we'd get more than enough information to keep 90% of a certain religion out of here, without directly doing that.
        dpark 10y ago
        > And if the religion condones crimes against humanity? No. If you want to block people who say they are against homosexuality, that might be legal. If you want to block people who say their religion is against homosexuality, that's not legal. The subtle differences matter. Similarly, if you're hiring for a warehouse job, you can discriminate against people who cannot safely lift 50lb packages repeatedly. You cannot discriminate explicitly against people in wheelchairs, even though that group in general will have a lot of trouble lifting 50 lb packages overhead.
  - lobf 10y ago
    >the Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
    - drakonandor 10y ago
      Great, so people not currently in the country are not living among us.
      - lobf 10y ago
        As soon as they are within the boundaries of our laws, they are covered.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jimbokun 10y ago
Then over a dozen women confirming, yes, he did indeed do everything he claimed to do. "His statements verbatim do not imply anything criminal, unless you fill in extra words yourself." Uh, no, he describes text book sexual assault. "I think that if any other celebrity said what he said, you'd think it's a little off color, but not bragging about criminal actions." Many people have pointed this out already, but this is a really weird way to brag about sexual prowess. Most men who brag about their sex lives, brag about how many women want to sleep with them, not about grabbing, groping or kissing women uninvited.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  > uninvited He never said 'uninvited'. You are putting that word in his mouth because of your bias. He said at least one thing that shows his belief that whoever he's referring to was ok with it, as he said something like, "when you're famous, they let you do anything".
  - dpark 10y ago
    > I just start kissing them. ... I don’t even wait. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-trans... You might be able to argue that it's not unwanted, but you cannot claim it's not uninvited. By Trump's own statement he doesn't wait for an invitation. (Arguably, he also doesn't wait for any indication it's wanted, so if this is really his behavior he's undoubtedly done it to women who did not want it.)
    - drakonandor 10y ago
      you are adding "for permission" at the end of his statement. There are at ton of reasonable phrases that can go at the end that aren't predator-esque. e.g. "for a breath mint" or "for privacy" So, again, you are adding words and context to his statements in an effort to convince yourself he's terrible.
      - 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

So ignore the part about sexual assault and there's still a laundry list of stuff that Trump has said on the record that is terrifying in a major party political candidate. Complementing dictators for running countries well? Proposing a ban on Muslims in direct contradiction of the bill of rights?

drakonandor 10y ago
As I understand, even at the farthest point he was talking about non-citizens of this country. I don't personally believe we need a reason to stop a non-citizen from coming here. I also don't see any reference in the Bill of Rights concerning that - it's certainly a presidential power that has been exercised before. It is worth noting he has since backed (evolved if you will) that position down to "extreme vetting" to "certain parts of the world" (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.)
- dpark 10y ago
  There has never to my knowledge been a president who banned immigration based on religion. If it's happened it was unconstitutional then as well. Certainly it's within the government's scope to ban immigration but not based on a religious test.
  - itbeho 10y ago
    Obama in 2011? He certainly didn't say it was based on religion, but these were almost all muslim countries of origin: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presi...
    - dpark 10y ago
      Did you link to the wrong proclamation? There are no countries even specified there. It's basically a proclamation that we won't allow in people who committed war crimes. And there's nothing legally wrong about blocking immigration from a certain country or countries. We could block immigration from Italy and Poland and it wouldn't be unconstitutional despite the fact that they are predominantly Catholic. The religious test itself is what's unconstitutional.
      - drakonandor 10y ago
        And if the religion condones crimes against humanity? All we'd have to do is ask: What do you think should be done with homosexuals? What do you think should be done with Israel? and we'd get more than enough information to keep 90% of a certain religion out of here, without directly doing that.
        dpark 10y ago
        > And if the religion condones crimes against humanity? No. If you want to block people who say they are against homosexuality, that might be legal. If you want to block people who say their religion is against homosexuality, that's not legal. The subtle differences matter. Similarly, if you're hiring for a warehouse job, you can discriminate against people who cannot safely lift 50lb packages repeatedly. You cannot discriminate explicitly against people in wheelchairs, even though that group in general will have a lot of trouble lifting 50 lb packages overhead.
- lobf 10y ago
  >the Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    Great, so people not currently in the country are not living among us.
    - lobf 10y ago
      As soon as they are within the boundaries of our laws, they are covered.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jimbokun 10y ago

Then over a dozen women confirming, yes, he did indeed do everything he claimed to do. "His statements verbatim do not imply anything criminal, unless you fill in extra words yourself." Uh, no, he describes text book sexual assault. "I think that if any other celebrity said what he said, you'd think it's a little off color, but not bragging about criminal actions." Many people have pointed this out already, but this is a really weird way to brag about sexual prowess. Most men who brag about their sex lives, brag about how many women want to sleep with them, not about grabbing, groping or kissing women uninvited.

drakonandor 10y ago
> uninvited He never said 'uninvited'. You are putting that word in his mouth because of your bias. He said at least one thing that shows his belief that whoever he's referring to was ok with it, as he said something like, "when you're famous, they let you do anything".
- dpark 10y ago
  > I just start kissing them. ... I don’t even wait. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-trans... You might be able to argue that it's not unwanted, but you cannot claim it's not uninvited. By Trump's own statement he doesn't wait for an invitation. (Arguably, he also doesn't wait for any indication it's wanted, so if this is really his behavior he's undoubtedly done it to women who did not want it.)
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    you are adding "for permission" at the end of his statement. There are at ton of reasonable phrases that can go at the end that aren't predator-esque. e.g. "for a breath mint" or "for privacy" So, again, you are adding words and context to his statements in an effort to convince yourself he's terrible.
    - 10y ago